I have been working on getting things done before leaving on vacation today. I have read the emails concerning this topic and will ponder them while on vacation. With the expectation that RedHat will release RHEL 5 next week we are planning on rebuilding the srpms . If in the future we decide to be involved in Centos then we still can. Note that "sites" are going to be based on the new repo availability. Off to vacation -Connie Sieh On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Jaroslaw Polok wrote: > Hello all. > > Just investigating for the future: or shall we (we = all > of us using SL(X) go Scientific Linux 5 .. or maybe re-base > to CentOS 5 ? > > From what I can personally see, and looking at past years > I believe we are seriously missing resources necessary > to develop SL to become something more than a Red Hat > 'clone' ... all of 4-5 (sorry if I missed some!) > people contributing are obviously overloaded with their > other work in the labs ... > > The only added value of SL (comparing to CentOS) as > I see it now is: > > 1). Adding to anaconda the 'sites' functionality > 2). Adding AFS client (plus few more packages). > > (well, there are few more customizations but these are > minor I would say) > > I believe that above could be addressed by a different > solution in the future: RHEL 5 anaconda should be able > to use (during installation) additional > yum repositories (therefore packages we put in 'site' > could come from there..) : > > - we could possibly use that mechanism in order to > build our own 'branches': Fermi, CERN, DESY .. etc .. > > Additional packages (not already present elsewhere) > could be submitted to CentOS contrib / centosplus > repos (if general purpose) ... or a new addon > CentOS repository. > > Adopting the above would permit us to spend more > time on something which was supposed to be one > of our main goals ... and what is not really > achieved: adding 'scientific' packages to the > distribution... > > What is you opinion about re-basing on CentOS ? > > Pros ? Cons ? > > Let me start the list: > > - Pros: > > - Avoiding duplicating what already has been > provided by linux community. > > - Joining 'forces' with others having very similar goal > (free linux with long livetime 100% RHEL compatible) > > - Having more time for development of parts > of distribution really related to 'science'. > (or other areas used developed in our labs: > cluster management, HSM, managed desktops ... etc.) > > - Much larger 'userbase' (see mailing lists !) > > - Much larger 'expertbase' for community support. > > - Lots of personal time of some of us saved > (all these alpha/beta/rc releases > ... plus tests ... ) > [well: I don't know how it is in your labs: but we > at CERN cannot spend more than 20%-25% of FTE (Full > Time Equivalent) on linux distribution preparation ..] > > - Cons: > > - ? > > > Please reply to the list what are your opinions about > the above: > > - I believe that it is right time to discuss such > possibility: > > RHEL 5/CentOS 5/SL 5 are not out yet and I believe > there will be no urgency to deploy it in our labs > anytime soon (certainly not at CERN: we are just > migrating to 4: we will not be permitted to > go forward during LHC startup and also most likely > not in 2008 ..) > > > Cheers > > Jarek (frequently overloaded SLC maintainer ;-)) > > __ > ------------------------------------------------------- > _ Jaroslaw_Polok ___________________ CERN - IT/FIO/LA _ > _ http://home.cern.ch/~jpolok ___ tel_+41_22_767_1834 _ > _____________________________________ +41_78_792_0795 _ >