SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Adrian Sevcenco <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Adrian Sevcenco <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:54:06 +0200
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (995 bytes) , smime.p7s (2335 bytes)
On 01/09/2014 02:37 PM, Bluejay Adametz wrote:
> My US$0.02, it seems like maybe RedHat wants something in between the
> stable, solid, reliable, and, yes, sometimes dated Enterprise Linux
> and the wild & crazy :) world of Fedora.
As far i understood nothing will change with regard of data path for
distribution of CentOS (it will be the same process of taking _released_
srpms, clean up, rebuild). RH just extend an administrative umbrella
(and some significant support) over the CentOS organization.

Anyway, as rebuilding and re-branding is quite intensive i was wondering
if the differences between centos and sl could be packed in some repo
(as most (that i know of) of the cern scientific software is already put
into).
What technical differences would be between CentOS + scientific repo and SL?

Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human resources
for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related) packages in
well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)

Thanks!
Adrian



ATOM RSS1 RSS2