What happen to working with CentOS ? I thought there was duplicated 
efforts between SL & CentOS. Are there advantages to:
- co-ordinated release of TUV patches, security updates, etc.
- co-ordinate distro releases
- common fastbugs, testing, devel & contrib areas
- common bugzilla platform

How much redundancy is there between CentOS-extras & SL ? What are the 
major differences between CentOS & SL ?

Regards,
Chris Hunter
Yale University

> Date:    Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:15:04 -0500
> From:    Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: SL6 Planning Questions
> 
> Hello,
> With the RHEL6 beta out, and SL 5.5 released, it's time to really start 
> planning for SL6.
> There are a few idea's that would be good to be discussed before we
> charge forward to implement them.
> 
> *Sites - Customized SL releases
> In the past, we have always put patches into anaconda (the installer) so
> that people and groups can more easily create a custom release.
> We were thinking of not changing the installer at all, but instead
> implement revisor, and it's friends, to create custom sites, in the same
> way that Fedora creates their custom spins.
> - This would be less work on our part
> - Documentation should be better since we would mainly be using Fedora's
> - The technique could be transfered to CentOS based distributions.
> 
> *Yum - autoupdate
> How do we want to do that?
> - Continue with my script ?
> - Use yum-cron ?
> - have several things available ?
> 
> *Kernel-modules
> They are a necessary evil.  How should we handle them on SL6
> 
> *Security - Bugs - Enhancement Updates
> Do we want everything separate still?
> Do we want everything in one big yum repository with them labeled
> correctly as Security, Bugs, and Enhancements?
> If we had them in one big repository, we would have to label them as
> security, bugs, enhansements, and them make sure we used the
> yum-security plugin.
> 
> *Yum Repositories
> What should we have for default?
> Should we still have "contrib"?
> Should we add "development"?
> Should we have yum-conf-epel?  Or should that be a default repository?
> 
> *JAVA
> I propose we don't add Sun's (Oracle's) java.
> 
> *What should we add to SL6
> At the last Hepix meeting one of the discussions was that many
> scientists are adding their packages to EPEL.  They would like it if
> packages that are in EPEL stay just in EPEL and not go into SL unless
> there is a good reason for it.
> A good reason would be that it is needed during the install.
> I like this idea and would like to adopt it.
> This would mean that we would take out several packages that have
> traditionally been in earlier SL releases, but I think it will make
> things better and more consistent in the long run.
> This way scientists would be able to know they are getting the same
> packages whether they are running SL, RHEL or CentOS.
> Thoughts on this proposal?
> 
> Troy
> -- __________________________________________________ Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468 Fermilab ComputingDivision/LSCS/CSI/USS Group __________________________________________________