Hi Alex,
I think these questions are a little off the thread, but they are still 
good questions.

Alex Owen wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I have peoblems with the development model for Scientific Linux.
> 
> It is unclear where to report bugs:
>     * To Scientific Linux ?
>     * To RedHat ?
>     * To Fedora ?
> 

First - [log in to unmask]
After that it depends on who made the bug.  Us or RedHat.  If we made 
the bug, we'll fix it to the best of our ability.  If RedHat, then it 
needs to get reported to them.

> The route to get new packages into SL is also unclear:
>     * direct to SL ?
>     * request via RedHat ?
>     * request via Fedora and hope RedHat picks the changes/packages up?
> 

That depends on your goal.  If you want something in RedHat.  Talk to 
RedHat.  If you want it in Fedora, talk to Fedora.  If you want it in 
Scientific Linux, talk to Scientific Linux.
Here's the problem.
Unless you are talking to RedHat, and you are paying RedHat alot of 
money, you are asking people, whom you are not paying any money, to do 
work for you.
I say that because many people come to me and say "Put in product Y", I 
always ask, "Who is going to maintain product Y"?  95% of the time the 
reply is "You are, you're the professional"
Outside of the main developers, I have had *one* person come to me and 
says "I have product Y, and I am going to maintain product Y, and here 
are the rpm's"  Low and behold, Product Y is in the distribution.

> OK so Jaroslaw has identified that the main benifit of SL is its 
> additions to anaconda to have multiple "sites"[*]. The thing is that 
> unless this can be integrated into anaconda upstream then we will always 
> have to maintain this code.
> 

We've been maintaining the code for over 3 years, I don't see us 
stopping any time soon.  I guess I should also be specific.  Connie 
maintains that code, and I don't see her complaining about maintaining it.
But you say, it should go into the upstream anadonda code.  That's a 
good point. If you follow Fedora and the anaconda code you will read 
about how they are making it easier for people to make customizable 
Fedora releases.  If you read the documentation about what they are 
doing it sounds ... just like sites with a different name.  So it looks 
like this code is actually going into anaconda.

> I can see your argument for baseing off CentOS but then you make my two 
> isses above even less clear:
>   Fedora->RedHat->CentOS->SL
> 
> If the suits are happy to base of CentOS as an external community 
> provider why not Fedora?

Who are the "suits" you are talking about?

> This would make the issue of getting SL changes into the core a lot easier.
> 
> Now I have problems with using Fedora as an "Enterprise" distribution... 
> mostly because of the frequent release schedule...
> 

You've answered your own question.  Fedora's release schedule is not 
suitable for Scientific Linux.

...
rambling deleted
...

> I'm not all that keen on the multiple site thing anyhow. I don't see why 
> a site cannot install the core then keep a repo of it's own divergent 
> packages. Oh anaconda... !
> 

Nobody says they can't.  We aren't forcing anyone to do anything.  We 
are providing this as a service for those that want to.
If a University or Lab is forcing you to use Scientific Linux in a 
certain way, you should talk with that University or Lab.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________