What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On 01/20/2012 08:07 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic<office@plnet.rs> wrote:
>
>> My wish is to create LiveDVD, and even regular install ISO's with at
>> least ElRepo driver packages,
>
> You might remember this story:
>
> http://dag.wieers.com/blog/centos-based-livecd-at-froscon
>

No, I was not aware of this. Even though I was building my own repo and
packages at that time, I think I became more active on CentOS mailing
list (and following more closely events) only after that time frame.

But that is exactly what I would like to see. I've created my own LiveCD
for 5.3 2 months after that event with mdadm and LVM support, GParted,
Krusader, mc, Skype (I think) and other packages so I have disaster
recovery CD able to perform all desktop functions including
communication and net surfing. I still carry it with me until I
supersede it with 6.x version (but not replace it, for older PC's).


I see that this threatens to turn from name audition to discussion, So I
offer following solution:

1. All of you think about what name would be acceptable for CentOS
sponsored project (if such desire exists), and what would be acceptable
for separate project (headed by me for example).

2. I will write the text, in next 7 days, that will embody my vision for
CentOS based fork(s?), and then we can discuss it in detail. At the
moment I have to answer about my envision without comprehensive
overview, and it could become a very long thread.

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote on 01/20/2012 02:03 PM:
> Once again, THAT IS why I am asking here before I make any decision. My
> first impulse was CentDOS, but I chose to suppress it and come here and
> ask for projects opinion what is and what is not acceptable, and choose
> from acceptable ones.

Seems like Russ is saying nothing close to CentOS, so the rest of the
namespace is open to your imagination. Maybe LLOS? :-)

Personally I like your idea and think it would be a good contribution to
the EL ecosystem. About time someone offered easy access to a "plus"
spin with additional drivers, multimedia, and other applications. Much
of the support load on the fora is from people trying to add such things.

Phil

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

I tried building a desktop spin, There is no software to make a spin, I tried using refracta, but failed to get it work or figure out how to port it over, I tried other methods but all failed,

I am now building a xfce 4.8 based system using debian squeeze, that is only 400mb iso, that will be out in a few months,



On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov> wrote:


Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote on 01/20/2012 02:03 PM:

> Once again, THAT IS why I am asking here before I make any decision. My

> first impulse was CentDOS, but I chose to suppress it and come here and

> ask for projects opinion what is and what is not acceptable, and choose

> from acceptable ones.



Seems like Russ is saying nothing close to CentOS, so the rest of the

namespace is open to your imagination. Maybe LLOS? :-)



Personally I like your idea and think it would be a good contribution to

the EL ecosystem. *About time someone offered easy access to a "plus"

spin with additional drivers, multimedia, and other applications. *Much

of the support load on the fora is from people trying to add such things.



Phil



_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

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



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On 01/21/2012 01:19 AM, lowlux wrote:
> I tried building a desktop spin, There is no software to make a spin, I
> tried using refracta, but failed to get it work or figure out how to
> port it over, I tried other methods but all failed,
>

First part will be repo rpm for online conversion to "new OS", and
virtual rpm's to install additional apps/packages. That is very close,
first versions can be released in few days once I choose the name.

The next step would be to push LiveDVD ISO, which will not be a problem,
I already have configs from official LiveDVD. This could be out in a
week from decision about a name.

The problem will be with distribution, I do not have bandwidth to serve
ISO downloads, but will provide torrents.

The third stage will be adding rpm's to existing ISO with changing the
"index" files. Someone already posted a e-mail about it (centos-users ml
I think).


--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On 01/23/2012 12:02 AM, Leon Fauster wrote:
> anyway - i like the core idea of a desktop version but what distinguish that one from
> the upstream client / workstation version (beside any 3rd party software repository).

All 3rd party repos have their own pace. RepoForge for instance does not
care what happens in EPEL. I see a need for possible "override of
certain packages in "master" repository for the "desktop distro" so
upgrade and install paths are stable.

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 15:36 +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> All 3rd party repos have their own pace. RepoForge for instance does
> not care what happens in EPEL.

This is a misstatement.

"RepoForge does not have sufficient resources to deeply care about what
happens in EPEL" would be somehow closer to the reality.

Having that said, this and other (organizational) issues are being
worked on, albeit very slowly, resources permitting.

--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

Dne 23.1.2012 15:36, Ljubomir Ljubojevic napsal(a):
> All 3rd party repos have their own pace. RepoForge for instance does
> not care what happens in EPEL. I see a need for possible "override of
> certain packages in "master" repository for the "desktop distro" so
> upgrade and install paths are stable.

So, Epel does so?
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Hrbáč <david-lists@hrbac.cz> wrote:
> Dne 23.1.2012 15:36, Ljubomir Ljubojevic napsal(a):
>> All 3rd party repos have their own pace. RepoForge for instance does
>> not care what happens in EPEL. I see a need for possible "override of
>> certain packages in "master" repository for the "desktop distro" so
>> upgrade and install paths are stable.
>
> So, Epel does so?

EPEL's policy is to not replace any upstream packages so there is
generally no versioning issue if they are the only additional repo,
although they only consider RHEL to be upstream, not centos plus or
extras which would be from some perspectives. Sometimes there are
good reasons for needing newer, not just additional packages, and
sometimes things you need are introduced in some other repo before
EPEL and a conflict arises when EPEL adds it or the versions leapfrog
each other. I don't think there can ever be a general solution as
long as policy restrictions keep things from being managed together.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

Dne 23.1.2012 17:38, Les Mikesell napsal(a):
> ... so there is generally no versioning issue if they are the only
> additional repo...

RF is the very same...
DH

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

What name would be acceptable for Desktop version of CentOS?
 

On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 10:38 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:

> EPEL's policy is to not replace any upstream packages so there is
> generally no versioning issue if they are the only additional repo

There is much more than just that to it, read inconsistent package
naming, "public" libraries residing together with the application in the
same package and the list goes on.

On top of this there are things like packages compiled against libraries
with different ABI versions etc., which very quickly gets messy once
your package base becomes sufficiently large and you are mixing sources.

All of this can only be fully resolved by a substantial effort to keep
repositories compatible, which in turn requires the resources that
neither RF or EPEL have to spare.

There have been some efforts to keep the repositories "reasonably"
compatible from both sides, but that's pretty much as far as you can get
given current situation; it will never be perfect.

--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel