On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:25:29AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Thursday 01 March 2007 10:18:24 am Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:49:02AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 13:53 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:30:50PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > > > > > FP! :-) > > > > > > > > > > Joke aside, I'd like to see which views we have on the release and > > > > > update procedure to apply to EPEL. > > > > > > > > > > - Do we want a moving (and potentially breaking) set of packages > > > > > which is constantly being updated? > > > > > > > > The CentOS way > > > > > > > > > - De we want a fixed set of packages when a RHEL release is made and > > > > > focus on major bugfixes and security updates from there on? > > > > > > > > More RHEL like > > > > > > FWIW, the CentOS people I spoke to at FOSDEM were very much interested > > > in the "fixed set, with bugfixes and security updates only" model. > > > > Well, in the world of clones you usually pick Scientific Linux for > > point in time releases and CentOS for rolling ones, that's the typical > > distinction between the last standing major clones. But some recent > > development will raise a higher incentive to support the RHEL model > > better within CentOS soon. > > > > But that makes our lives more miserable, because it pushes towards > > backporting. > > Umm CentOS releases updates shortly after RHEL does. Im not sure what rolling > releases you are talking about. Roling in the sense of the minor release integer. > or are you talking about CentOS plus or some such No, that's something different, that's an add-on repo which goes beyond cloning. Compare http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/4/isos/i386/ to https://www.scientificlinux.org/download/ E.g. the range of 4.x versions. SL follows RH in maintaining each point release, while CentOS kind of EOLs the previous point releases. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpOLKkCWs41G.pgp
Description: PGP signature