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
> 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
Umm CentOS releases updates shortly after RHEL does. Im not sure what rolling
releases you are talking about. or are you talking about CentOS plus or
Dennis Gilmore, RHCE