Well correction that was one of the original goals of LTS (Long term support Linux) which was the name of one of the two efforts which were combine to create SL. Since then TUV a.k.a Red Hat has changed their lifecycle policy and made it much longer that it had been prior to RHEL 4
I'm sure though if Red Hat decided to go back to a two or three year life cycle then SL's policy would change back to providing security patches over a longer period of time.
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
On Jan 9, 2014 18:39, Ian Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 09/01/14 23:13, Paul Robert Marino
wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">SL is an exact match to RHEL with only a few
variations such as the removed the client for Red Hats support
site integration and added a few things like AFS because their
labs need it. The differences are well documented in the release
notes and its a short list.
In addition SL guarantees long term patch availability even if Red
Hat is no longer supporting that release.
This wasn't my understanding. According to this page
https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions
...
"
* We plan on
following the TUV Life Cycle. Provided TUV continues to make the
source rpms publicly available."
... which disagrees with your statement. At least the way I read
it.
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
CentOS tends to do thing like update the PHP libraries to make it
easier for web developers. And as a result they take longer for
many security patches because they occasionally hit dependency
issues due to the packages they have updated.
I am pretty sure the base release does not do this kind of thing by
default. It would be a major deviation from being "binary
compatible" with upstream vendor, which is how I recall their stated
goal to be. It may be optional, however.
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
On Jan 9, 2014 13:17, Orion
Poplawski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
> 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
>
Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that
with SL you can
stay on EL point releases. That would require a major change in
the CentOS
infrastructure to support it. Worth exploring though...
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane [log in to unmask]
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com