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 03-23-2011, 02:53 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:45:16AM -0700, carlopmart wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 11:42 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> > On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
> >> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
> >>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
> >>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
> >> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
> > I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.
>
> Then, why you say that without evidence?

My two cents are that if you have those stringent of requirements you'd
be using RHEL, anyways.

I'd be interested to hear an expansion on this a bit more. Claims or
no claims, SL is rebuilt from RHEL sources just as CentOS is. Are
there specific examples of ABI breakage introduced?

It would be great to see these two fantastic projects collaborate (and
I know they do to some degree already).

Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 05:03 PM
David Hollis
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 11:53 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> My two cents are that if you have those stringent of requirements you'd
> be using RHEL, anyways.
>
> I'd be interested to hear an expansion on this a bit more. Claims or
> no claims, SL is rebuilt from RHEL sources just as CentOS is. Are
> there specific examples of ABI breakage introduced?
>
> It would be great to see these two fantastic projects collaborate (and
> I know they do to some degree already).

I think what really gets lost here is that just because a package is
rebuilt from the same package sources, it doesn't mean that it is
exactly 100% binary compatible. SL has stated that they maintain
compatibility but certainly do not guarantee it. By and large, most
packages probably are ABI identical and some may be slightly off but you
may never even notice it. However, if you ever did encounter cases
where there differences, that may cause major headaches for you.

The only way I could see the two projects 'merging' would be if the
CentOS goals remained and established the base OS and SL became the
addons and enhancements repo. Similar to the CentOS plus repo, ABI
compatibility may have to be broken by the SL additions but that would
be an end user choice.

I kind of thing that as others have mentioned already, keeping them
separate allows for more choice for the end user base. Some people
could care less about RHEL compatibility. Some may not care a helluva
lot but would prefer to have it lest they be bitten in the backside at
some point, and others demand it.

For those that demand it, sure purchasing RHEL would be a logical
option, but some people really do not need the support agreement. I
(certainly like many others on this list) have been running Linux boxes
for more years than I can count and I have never had to contact a vendor
for support. When I have had issues, I've been able to contact the
upstream package provider directly and have managed to get fantastic
support far beyond you would ever get from a commercial offering of any
sort.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Nico Kadel-Garcia
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

2011/3/23 Устинов Александр Александрович <rusfearuth@gmail.com>:
> SL has extra packages (it means they wasn't included into RHEL) that was
> included in it.
> ... we have added several packages to Scientific Linux that are not found
> anywhere in the upstream release, including IceWM, OpenAFS, Revisor, Live
> USB Creator, YUM auto-update, external YUM repositories... (c)
> from*http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06549
> SL and CentOS like two people that go different ways, but have the common
> base.
> Kind regards,
> Alexander Ustinov

Can those packages go in a separate channel, much as "centosplus" is a
separate channel? I don't have the spare environments to really spin
that distribution up right now for the side by side comparison.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 07:31 AM
Rainer Traut
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

Am 23.03.2011 11:42, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
> On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
>> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.

So this means you are making assertions you cannot prove - for whatever
reason. I cannot take you serious then.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 07:40 AM
"Simon Matter"
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

> Am 23.03.2011 11:42, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>> On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
>>> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
>> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.
>
> So this means you are making assertions you cannot prove - for whatever
> reason. I cannot take you serious then.

Go to the centos list archives and look things up yourself, this has been
discussed there recently.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 07:49 AM
Rainer Traut
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

Am 24.03.2011 03:07, schrieb Устинов Александр Александрович:
> SL has extra packages (it means they wasn't included into RHEL) that was
> included in it.
>
> ... we have added several packages to Scientific Linux that are not
> found anywhere in the upstream release, including IceWM, OpenAFS,
> Revisor, Live USB Creator, YUM auto-update, external YUM repositories...
> (c) from http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06549
>
> SL and CentOS like two people that go different ways, but have the
> common base.
>
> Kind regards,
> Alexander Ustinov

The funny thing is, the point you're bringing up is quite the reverse.

In SL it reads:
"> ... we have added several packages to Scientific Linux that are not
found anywhere in the upstream release, including IceWM, OpenAFS, "

In Centos it reads:
"CentOS Extras - This repository contains items that provide additional
functionality to CentOS ... horde framework and packages, freenx, apt,
XFCE, and yumex"

What is right though, in SL these extra packages exist in the default
repo, not in an extra repo - but it is enabled by default in Centos.

info from here:
http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories

Rainer


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 07:55 AM
Alexander Ustinov
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

2011/3/24 Rainer Traut <tr.ml@gmx.de>

Am 24.03.2011 03:07, schrieb Устинов Александр Александрович:

> SL has extra packages (it means they wasn't included into RHEL) that was

> included in it.

>

> ... we have added several packages to Scientific Linux that are not

> found anywhere in the upstream release, including IceWM, OpenAFS,

> Revisor, Live USB Creator, YUM auto-update, external YUM repositories...

> (c) from http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06549

>

> SL and CentOS like two people that go different ways, but have the

> common base.

>

> Kind regards,

> Alexander Ustinov



The funny thing is, the point you're bringing up is quite the reverse.



In SL it reads:

"> ... we have added several packages to Scientific Linux that are not

found anywhere in the upstream release, including IceWM, OpenAFS, "



In Centos it reads:

"CentOS Extras - This repository contains items that provide additional

functionality to CentOS ... horde framework and packages, freenx, apt,

XFCE, and yumex"



What is right though, in SL these extra packages exist in the default

repo, not in an extra repo - but it is enabled by default in Centos.



info from here:

http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories



Rainer





_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


Just have a read next message =) I wrote there about an another idea
Kind regards,Alexander Ustinov
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:02 AM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/24/2011 10:31 AM, Rainer Traut wrote:
> Am 23.03.2011 11:42, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>> On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
>>> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
>> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.
> So this means you are making assertions you cannot prove - for whatever
> reason. I cannot take you serious then.
>
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I appreciate it. Especially coming
after the answer that you demand was already given.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html


"It does not exist because I cannot see it" was never a valid reasoning.
Not even in the era when people believed the Earth is flat because there
was no evidence of roundness.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:07 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:

> On 03/23/2011 12:20 PM, Rainer Traut wrote:
>> Am 23.03.2011 11:09, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.

Manuel,

I don't see any reason why you may not share incompatibilities found in
Scientific Linux ? Can you shed a light on why that is ?

Other team members already disclosed two of those, so is there a reason
why not all of them are shared with the Scientific Linux team ?

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[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 03-24-2011, 08:12 AM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/24/2011 11:07 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:


>
>>>> if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
>>>> differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.
>>> Can you give an example of such package/binary?
>> I can but I am not sure that I may. So I won't.
> Manuel,
>
> I don't see any reason why you may not share incompatibilities found in
> Scientific Linux ? Can you shed a light on why that is ?
>
> Other team members already disclosed two of those, so is there a reason
> why not all of them are shared with the Scientific Linux team ?
There was no deep secret, just a matter of timming. It was not my answer
to give, I wanted to be sure that Johny & Karanbir take the needed
fixing steps first.
And as you might have already found out, Johny has already provided the
answer and RH has already acknowledged the bug in their bugzilla. It's
as simple as that.

_______________________________________________
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 06:35 PM.

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