Hi Chris,
With the past CentOS scare it made us thing again about merging with
CentOS and it was decided that it wasn't the best thing. We felt it was
best if there were two independent environments. Thus if something
happened to us, it wouldn't hurt CentOS, and vice versa.
That doesn't meant that we don't collaborate with them and help them
with problems and vice versa. But it is in both of our best interests
if we keep separate.
As for redundancy between CentOS extras and SL, I really don't know, I
haven't looked at CentOS Extras for a while.
But that is partly why we're looking at not putting everything under the
sun into SL6, but leave it in the various repositories. Some people
like the way EPEL does some packages, some like DAG, and some like
CentOS extra's. If we leave more packages in those repositories, quit
duplicating them in SL, and make it easy for admins to pick the
repositories they want, it should help everyone.
The major difference between CentOS and SL?
CentOS tries to be as close to RHEL as possible. They do not add
anything to it.
SL tries to be as close to RHEL as possible also. But we do add things
to it.
That is the main difference that I see. There are minor things, like
our general community, our style for releasing distributions, but those
things are minor to me.
I hope this answered more questions than it brings up.
Troy
Chris Hunter wrote:
> 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 __________________________________________________
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LSCS/CSI/USS Group
__________________________________________________
|
