FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-22-2008, 03:32 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Hi,

We discussed this on #centos after yet another "centos" user had problem
using yum. What is missing is a page targetted at
integrators/distributors with a list of requirements for using the
"CentOS" product name or even saying it is derived, based or build on
CentOS.

We might be able to kill more than one bird with a single stone, so I am
looking for more things we want to prevent distributors/integrators doing
without making it impossible for them to use CentOS altogether.

My first concern was the support problem, what do we (at minimum) expect
to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working yum using the CentOS
official repositories, a minimal set of official packages (which ?).

Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).

http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition

Feedback please ?
--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 03:53 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Dag Wieers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We discussed this on #centos after yet another "centos" user had problem
> using yum. What is missing is a page targetted at
> integrators/distributors with a list of requirements for using the
> "CentOS" product name or even saying it is derived, based or build on
> CentOS.
>

This issue crops up often on the forums too.

> We might be able to kill more than one bird with a single stone, so I am
> looking for more things we want to prevent distributors/integrators doing
> without making it impossible for them to use CentOS altogether.
>
> My first concern was the support problem, what do we (at minimum) expect
> to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working yum using the CentOS
> official repositories, a minimal set of official packages (which ?).
>

Cases seen on the forums often involve non-existent or broken yum and/or
custom a non-CentOS kernel. Those users tend to get pointed to the
BrokenVserver Wiki page. So an unadulterated working yum and CentOS
kernel as a starting point?

> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition
>
> Feedback please ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 04:16 PM
Roger Pena Escobio
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Ned Slider <ned@unixmail.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Ned Slider <ned@unixmail.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Defining what CentOS is
> To: "The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel@centos.org>
> Received: Monday, December 22, 2008, 11:53 AM
> Dag Wieers wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We discussed this on #centos after yet another
> "centos" user had problem
> > using yum. What is missing is a page targetted at
> > integrators/distributors with a list of requirements
> for using the
> > "CentOS" product name or even saying it is
> derived, based or build on
> > CentOS.
> >
>
> This issue crops up often on the forums too.
>
> > We might be able to kill more than one bird with a
> single stone, so I am
> > looking for more things we want to prevent
> distributors/integrators doing
> > without making it impossible for them to use CentOS
> altogether.
> >
> > My first concern was the support problem, what do we
> (at minimum) expect
> > to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working
> yum using the CentOS
> > official repositories, a minimal set of official
> packages (which ?).
> >
>
> Cases seen on the forums often involve non-existent or
> broken yum and/or
> custom a non-CentOS kernel. Those users tend to get pointed
> to the
> BrokenVserver Wiki page. So an unadulterated working yum
> and CentOS
> kernel as a starting point?

centos-release package and the affecting package being build by CentOS build system could be also an start point to be considered a centos support case, and when I write "support" I mean the usual way centos provide support


thanks
roger
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 04:37 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Dag Wieers wrote:

> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition

I ping'ed you in that channel as to the addition at /Admin,
and as I got no reply, delinked it there

I did a preliminary pass on the page as it is a discussion
draft, marking open items

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:15 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Dag Wieers wrote:
> We might be able to kill more than one bird with a single stone, so I am
> looking for more things we want to prevent distributors/integrators doing
> without making it impossible for them to use CentOS altogether.

so, a sort of Best Practices for these people, sounds like a good idea.
I should dig out my talk from last Fosdem as well. That might go well
with this page.

> My first concern was the support problem, what do we (at minimum) expect
> to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working yum using the CentOS
> official repositories, a minimal set of official packages (which ?).
>
> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition
>
> Feedback please ?

Its not immediately clear as to who this is targeting. Is it for people
who base their products off CentOS ? or is it for the Users who end up
with broken setups ? The reason for my confusion is that the doc seems
to target the product builders, but the support issue is something that
comes down to the users.

Also, as far as I am concerned, if their product has >= 1 rpm taken from
CentOS, then thats what it is, based on CentOS, based around CentOS,
incorporating CentOS, whatever one might term it as. If its got bits
from CentOS, they should be able to tell people its got bits from CentOS.

--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #centos@irc.freenode.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:27 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> My first concern was the support problem, what do we (at minimum) expect
>> to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working yum using the CentOS
>> official repositories, a minimal set of official packages (which ?).
>>
>> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
>> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition
>>
>> Feedback please ?
>
> Its not immediately clear as to who this is targeting. Is it for people
> who base their products off CentOS ? or is it for the Users who end up
> with broken setups ? The reason for my confusion is that the doc seems
> to target the product builders, but the support issue is something that
> comes down to the users.

We have a document for users were we urge them to harass the integrator
already. But I think it makes more sense what we expect from integrators
than to proxy-by-user without any guidelines.

So yes, we are targetting integrators using CentOS (and their users maybe
indirectly but not per se).


> Also, as far as I am concerned, if their product has >= 1 rpm taken from
> CentOS, then thats what it is, based on CentOS, based around CentOS,
> incorporating CentOS, whatever one might term it as. If its got bits
> from CentOS, they should be able to tell people its got bits from CentOS.

Right, and then we get complaining users asking us why they can't do this
or that and then this is because their yum is broken by design. Or they
have no security updates. And what happens on the forums/IRC, they get
told they are NOT using CentOS.

You get 2 parties hating each other and the guilty party earns the cash
and maybe doesn't care

Fine by me, because I'm generally not on those forums. But I see the 2
parties hurt (and wasting time).

--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 09:34 PM
Jim Wildman
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> Its not immediately clear as to who this is targeting. Is it for people
> who base their products off CentOS ? or is it for the Users who end up
> with broken setups ? The reason for my confusion is that the doc seems
> to target the product builders, but the support issue is something that
> comes down to the users.
>
> Also, as far as I am concerned, if their product has >= 1 rpm taken from
> CentOS, then thats what it is, based on CentOS, based around CentOS,
> incorporating CentOS, whatever one might term it as. If its got bits
> from CentOS, they should be able to tell people its got bits from CentOS.

coming to it 'cold', I assumed it was targetted at those basing 'product'
on CentOS. Sort of a short version of how to live well with the
community.

I suggest a piece on or link to good rpm naming/disttag usage, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wildman, CISSP, RHCE jim@rossberry.com http://www.rossberry.com
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best
state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:02 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>> We might be able to kill more than one bird with a single stone, so I am
>> looking for more things we want to prevent distributors/integrators doing
>> without making it impossible for them to use CentOS altogether.
>
> so, a sort of Best Practices for these people, sounds like a good idea.
> I should dig out my talk from last Fosdem as well. That might go well
> with this page.
>
>> My first concern was the support problem, what do we (at minimum) expect
>> to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working yum using the CentOS
>> official repositories, a minimal set of official packages (which ?).
>>
>> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to
>> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support).
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition
>>
>> Feedback please ?
>

<snip>

>
> Also, as far as I am concerned, if their product has >= 1 rpm taken from
> CentOS, then thats what it is, based on CentOS, based around CentOS,
> incorporating CentOS, whatever one might term it as. If its got bits
> from CentOS, they should be able to tell people its got bits from CentOS.
>

Agreed, but there's also a big difference between "based on CentOS" (or
whatever term one wishes to use) and "is CentOS".

I agree with Dag that solution providers shouldn't be able to sell it as
CentOS if it clearly isn't because they've modified, disabled or removed
key parts of the system. The community can't be expected to support it
when we (the community) don't know what a solution provider has changed
or why they have changed it.

So we're back to the question of what can and can't be changed in a
system for it still to be CentOS.

What about artwork - if a system has been changed to the point where it
is no longer CentOS, but now based on CentOS, can it continue to use the
CentOS artwork and logos? What if the artwork alone is changed
(rebranding) - is that still CentOS and can it be marketed as such?


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:07 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Dag Wieers wrote:
> We have a document for users were we urge them to harass the integrator
> already. But I think it makes more sense what we expect from integrators
> than to proxy-by-user without any guidelines.

yes. Also, the page we point people to at the moment is focused around
VPS's - which are a large part of the culprits, but might not be the
whole set. I wonder if there is an easy way to identify the other
'culprits' ( for the lack of a better term ), and maybe have specific
wiki pages that address their own 'special' case.

> Right, and then we get complaining users asking us why they can't do this
> or that and then this is because their yum is broken by design. Or they
> have no security updates. And what happens on the forums/IRC, they get
> told they are NOT using CentOS.

'using CentOS' or 'using something derived from CentOS' or 'using
something that includes portions of CentOS' could potentially be very
different from each other.

> You get 2 parties hating each other and the guilty party earns the cash
> and maybe doesn't care

ok, so a two pronged approach - one targetting the providers, and focus
on best practises and another set of wiki pages, working on a 'recovery
path' that users of these setups might be able to walk through to bring
their machine upto a stable status.

It can, ofcourse only be a best effort from the CentOS side of things -
eg, you cant 'fix' a OpenVZ install, its not going to work if you fix it
all the way. Neither is a Plesk or cPanel install. If you 'fix that' the
product itself stops working. What we could do is make the situation
clear to both sides, and give them both material to work with.

my 2c worth.

--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #centos@irc.freenode.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:09 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Defining what CentOS is

Ned Slider wrote:
> I agree with Dag that solution providers shouldn't be able to sell it as
> CentOS if it clearly isn't because they've modified, disabled or removed
> key parts of the system.

ok, so lets be clear about one thing - no-one except CentOS.org can
distribute anything called 'CentOS'. Everything else is just 'derived
from, based on, using parts of, inspired from etc.

--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #centos@irc.freenode.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org