Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they
can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment.
But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due
to their willingness to publish updates even without the entire new
release bundled, and the much timelier updates from the upstream
vendor. php53 and bind97 are directly available for their verison 5.x
release, and their version 6.0 has now taken over my testing
environments. This makes EPEL's version of drupal, and various Samba 4
testing accessible, and I don't have to waste my time on backports
that will be replaced by a release that is further, and further, and
further behind.
Perhaps in the future the configuration of the build and patch
environments can be opened up, or the patching going on for the
package rebundling can be published in just the way people with RHEL
would publish their kernel patches, rather than presenting merely the
results. But such ideas have been rejected as unnecessary, and even
the suggestion was rejected with hostility.
I know very well how much work such projects take, and regret that I
was unable to assist further. My tweaks and bundles will now be going
over to Fedora and Scientific Linux, rather than here or in the
developer's list.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
<nkadel at gmail.com>
On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they > can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment. > But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due > to their willingness to publish updates even without the entire new > release bundled, and the much timelier updates from the upstream > vendor. php53 and bind97 are directly available for their verison 5.x > release, and their version 6.0 has now taken over my testing > environments. This makes EPEL's version of drupal, and various Samba 4 > testing accessible, and I don't have to waste my time on backports > that will be replaced by a release that is further, and further, and > further behind. > > Perhaps in the future the configuration of the build and patch > environments can be opened up, or the patching going on for the > package rebundling can be published in just the way people with RHEL > would publish their kernel patches, rather than presenting merely the > results. But such ideas have been rejected as unnecessary, and even > the suggestion was rejected with hostility. > > I know very well how much work such projects take, and regret that I > was unable to assist further. My tweaks and bundles will now be going > over to Fedora and Scientific Linux, rather than here or in the > developer's list. > > Nico Kadel-GarciaI would not fault someone for "moving on", but I would when said person does so in a manner that only leads to unhelpful drama. Anyway, best in the future. -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer at alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they > can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment. > But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due > to their willingness to publish updates even without the entire new > release bundled, and the much timelier updates from the upstream > vendor. php53 and bind97 are directly available for their verison 5.x > release, and their version 6.0 has now taken over my testing > environments. This makes EPEL's version of drupal, and various Samba 4 > testing accessible, and I don't have to waste my time on backports > that will be replaced by a release that is further, and further, and > further behind. > > Perhaps in the future the configuration of the build and patch > environments can be opened up, or the patching going on for the > package rebundling can be published in just the way people with RHEL > would publish their kernel patches, rather than presenting merely the > results. But such ideas have been rejected as unnecessary, and even > the suggestion was rejected with hostility. > > I know very well how much work such projects take, and regret that I > was unable to assist further. My tweaks and bundles will now be going > over to Fedora and Scientific Linux, rather than here or in the > developer's list. >Big issue I saw with Scientific Linux was a lack of commitment to long term support matching what RedHat and Centos provide. My $.02 Steve Clark -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110403/cdd12fff/attachment.html>
On 3.4.2011 23:57, Steve Clark wrote:> Big issue I saw with Scientific Linux was a lack of commitment to long > term support matching what RedHat and Centos provide.This seems to be true. https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/ Assuming that CentOS is supporting as long as RedHat: CentOS 5 until March 31, 2014 SL 5 until at least 2012-02-02 CentOS 6 until November 30, 2017 SL 6 until at least 2014-11-11 -- Kind Regards, Markus Falb -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110404/b7cf783f/attachment-0005.sig>