08/06/2010 14:13 -0500, Troy Dawson wrote:

> 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.

The question about SL-CentOS merging did repeat with regularity in this
mailing list and not only. I agree with Troy -- different realizations
is not always bad, especially for different aims. Both of them is very
helpful for our projects, despite we based our solutions on SL.

Just for information -- we made own Scientific Linux derived
distribution called NauLinux. It is approved for using in Russian
schools and placed to government supported software repositories. One of
the main requirements of such approvement -- a complete rebuilding from
sources. Many thanks to Troy and Connie for the help, and I sincerely
hope that some our patches and tricks was helpful to him too ;).

My opinion -- the field of collaboration may be building environments,
especially with a deeper using Fedora build technologies (Koji, Bodhi). 

May be someone from CentOS people can say something about it? As I
understand, some of them is here -- what do you think about
collaboration with another Upstream-Vendor-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-based
distribution builders? Is it interesting for you?