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, 08:13 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

Hi all,

Please, first of all, I don't want to start a flame about this
subject. I only wnat to know CentOS's developers point of view about
this particular.

Due to the delays that occurs in the release of new CentOS's versions
and patches, and because CentOS developers involved in these tasks may
not have sufficient time to devote to it (and also make if freely and
spending their time), and I think that has been much talk about the whys
for users and developers:

- Why not a distribution fusion between Scientific Linux and CentOS?

- Why not join efforts in the development of a single Enterprise Linux
solid distribution based on RHEL?

I repeat: I only want to know your point of view.

Thanks.

--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:27 AM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

Scientific Linux uses upstream source to create their own repo, without
desire to be 100% compatible.

CentOS project is dedicated to provide (as close as possible) 100%
compatibility. It's not just a rebuild of upstream sources, goal is tu
*duplicate* RHEL.

It's that simple. And this was answer many times in this and other
mailing lists, forum threads....

Ljubomir

carlopmart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please, first of all, I don't want to start a flame about this
> subject. I only wnat to know CentOS's developers point of view about
> this particular.
>
> Due to the delays that occurs in the release of new CentOS's versions
> and patches, and because CentOS developers involved in these tasks may
> not have sufficient time to devote to it (and also make if freely and
> spending their time), and I think that has been much talk about the whys
> for users and developers:
>
> - Why not a distribution fusion between Scientific Linux and CentOS?
>
> - Why not join efforts in the development of a single Enterprise Linux
> solid distribution based on RHEL?
>
> I repeat: I only want to know your point of view.
>
> Thanks.
>

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:46 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 10:27 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Scientific Linux uses upstream source to create their own repo, without
> desire to be 100% compatible.
>
> CentOS project is dedicated to provide (as close as possible) 100%
> compatibility. It's not just a rebuild of upstream sources, goal is tu
> *duplicate* RHEL.
>
> It's that simple. And this was answer many times in this and other
> mailing lists, forum threads....
>
> Ljubomir
>

I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
not?


--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:52 AM
"John R. Dennison"
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46:21AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>
> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
> not?

Because unless something has changed SL does not profess to be
binary compatible with upstream; and for _many_ users that isn't
only a strong desire, but a show-stopping requirement.






John
--
It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about
education so little stress is laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated
person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able to be caught up
into the world of thought -- THAT is to be educated.

-- Edith Hamilton (1867-1963), educator and writer, Saturday Evening Post,
27 September 1958
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:00 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 10:52 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46:21AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>
>> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
>> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
>> not?
>
> Because unless something has changed SL does not profess to be
> binary compatible with upstream

Are you sure?? What does it means "binary compatible" for you?? To me it
means that the software "foo" works perfectly on both distros. And all
the software I've tried, commercial and GNU, it works in both
distributions with the same mistakes and equally effective and performance.


--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:00 AM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

carlopmart wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 10:27 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Scientific Linux uses upstream source to create their own repo, without
>> desire to be 100% compatible.
>>
>> CentOS project is dedicated to provide (as close as possible) 100%
>> compatibility. It's not just a rebuild of upstream sources, goal is tu
>> *duplicate* RHEL.
>>
>> It's that simple. And this was answer many times in this and other
>> mailing lists, forum threads....
>>
>> Ljubomir
>>
>
> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
> not?
>

Then, I repeat, because SL *does not care* to build 100% *binary*
compatible packages, fo r CentOS it's a must.

Look at it this way. Upstream is a Coca-Cola Co. SL is Pepsi. They use
publicly available formulas from upstream in order to create product
that is as good as upstreams, but is not *the 100% same* since their
production formulas are not ***100%/absolutely*** the same.

In this analogy, CentOS is the industrial espionage guy who constantly
steals new formulas from upstream in order to create **exact/100%**
replicas of upstream product. For better analogy, lets say that
acquiring that formula is illegal.

So, how do you propose that Pepsi and counterfeit work together.

P.S. "counterfeit" is extremely wrong to say for CentOS, but analogy
demands clear distinction of persons involved, so I beg all to forgive
me for this.

Ljubomir
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:06 AM
carlopmart
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 11:00 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> carlopmart wrote:
>> On 03/23/2011 10:27 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> Scientific Linux uses upstream source to create their own repo, without
>>> desire to be 100% compatible.
>>>
>>> CentOS project is dedicated to provide (as close as possible) 100%
>>> compatibility. It's not just a rebuild of upstream sources, goal is tu
>>> *duplicate* RHEL.
>>>
>>> It's that simple. And this was answer many times in this and other
>>> mailing lists, forum threads....
>>>
>>> Ljubomir
>>>
>>
>> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
>> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
>> not?
>>
>
> Then, I repeat, because SL *does not care* to build 100% *binary*
> compatible packages, fo r CentOS it's a must.
>

Sorry, but that is not what is said from the SL website.:

from "http://www.scientificlinux.org":

"The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from
source.

Our main goal for the base distribution is to have everything compatible
with Enterprise, with only a few minor additions or changes. An example
of of items that were added are Alpine, and OpenAFS.

Our secondary goal is to allow easy customization for a site, without
disturbing the Scientific Linux base. The various labs are able to add
their own modifications to their own site areas. By the magic of
scripts, and the anaconda installer, each site is to be able to create
their own distributions with minimal effort. Or, if a users wishes, they
can simply install the base SL release."

And from SL FAQ:

"Q. What is Scientific Linux?

A. Scientific Linux is in essence, a commercial enterprise linux
distribution, recompiled.
What we have done is taken the source code from Enterprise (in srpm
form) and recompiled them. The resulting binaries (now in rpm form) are
then ours to do with as we desire as long as we follow the license from
that original source code, which we are doing.
We then bundle all these binaries into a linux distribution that is as
close to the commercial enterprise distribution as we can get it. The
goal is to ensure that if a program runs and is certified on the
commercial enterprise linux distribution, then it will run on the
corresponding Scientific release."

Where is the difference here against CentOS??


> Look at it this way. Upstream is a Coca-Cola Co. SL is Pepsi. They use
> publicly available formulas from upstream in order to create product
> that is as good as upstreams, but is not *the 100% same* since their
> production formulas are not ***100%/absolutely*** the same.
>

It is not a valid example


--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:09 AM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

On 03/23/2011 12:00 PM, carlopmart wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 10:52 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46:21AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
>>> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
>>> not?
>> Because unless something has changed SL does not profess to be
>> binary compatible with upstream
> Are you sure?? What does it means "binary compatible" for you??
binary compatible means that ALL dependencies are identical. each and
every one.

> To me it means that the software "foo" works perfectly on both distros.
if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking
differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.

> And all the software I've tried, commercial and GNU, it works in both
> distributions with the same mistakes and equally effective and performance.
You'll be surprised how subtle differences can influence programs
behaviour. My colleagues investigated for half a week a <2 second
difference for the execution time of a commercial application ( we are
beta testing ) when using a specific test scenario.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:17 AM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

Compare those 2 sentances:
> "The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from
> source.

-snip-

> "Q. What is Scientific Linux?
>
> A. Scientific Linux is in essence, a commercial enterprise linux
> distribution, recompiled.

and compare it with this statement:

"CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy
and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages
to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)."

For me, "basically" and "in essence" is not as same as "aims to be 100%
binary compatible"

If you can not see and understand, then I, or anyone else, can not help
you to understand the difference.

Ljubomir

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:20 AM
Rainer Traut
 
Default Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

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?

Rainer
_______________________________________________
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 06:57 AM.

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