On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:42:05 AM Fernando Cassia wrote:
> My opinion after this experience is that it'd help for CentOS to
> include system-config-network-tui as part of the base install.

The question becomes "Does upstream include it in their upstream EL?" If the answer is yes, it will be included. If the answer is no, it will not be included, as a rule of thumb.

> Just think the opposite: what would be the expense-damage of including
> it as part of the base install?. Would it:
>
> 1. Break the OS

Yes. It would break the bug-for-bug, feature-for-feature, compatibility with upstream EL, which is one of the goals of CentOS.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 2012-07-23, Fernando Cassia <fcassia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who was the genius that decided that system-config-network-tui should
> NOT be part of the base CentOS 6.3 install ??
>
> Not to mention it has insane deps like wifi firmware packages... not
> really if all you want to do is configure eth0 from the command
> line...

Wouldn't both of these decisions have been made upstream?

--keith

--
kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us


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

On 2012-07-26, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 06:59 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Who was the genius that decided that system-config-network-tui should
>>> NOT be part of the base CentOS 6.3 install ??
>>>
>>> Not to mention it has insane deps like wifi firmware packages... not
>>> really if all you want to do is configure eth0 from the command
>>> line...
>>
>> Wouldn't both of these decisions have been made upstream?
>
> yes and no. We have some liberty to change / adapt the install class's
> based on what comes down stream ( remember, we normalise the distro core
> to remove variant specific / pricing specific options from upstream ).
>
> The install classes and groups are things that we build, locally, in
> CentOS - in an attempt to match what is pushed downstream. If there are
> issues, its certainly worth testing to see if its a centos induced issue
> or not.

That sounds reasonable enough (and I wondered about that for the first
question).

What about the second issue? Would CentOS change RPM dependencies from
upstream (if it were possible)? That seems a lot less likely to me.

--keith

--
kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us


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