Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: CentOS 5.6 Released; CentOS 6.0 Still M.I.A.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,914

    Default CentOS 5.6 Released; CentOS 6.0 Still M.I.A.

    Phoronix: CentOS 5.6 Released; CentOS 6.0 Still M.I.A.

    In mid-January was when Red Hat made the RHEL 5.6 GA release, but now three months later the CentOS 5.6 community rebuild of RHEL 5.6 is finally available. CentOS 6.0 though is still missing in action...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTMxMQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Still MIA? When did it go missing?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Too bad about CentOS, I guess its contributors are busy doing other things.

    This doesn't appear to be Red Hat's fault at all: Scientific managed to push out Scientific 6 stable just fine. Maybe the CentOS guys are still upset about the way that Red Hat distributes kernel sources in RHEL6.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    What's really bad about CentOS is that they don't want the community to contribute to CentOS at all.

    There was a quote from one of the developers that they don't even want to tell people how they put the distro together, because why should they tell you how to put together a competing product?

    http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce...ch/007081.html
    > That last part, "easily accessible", is just as important as "public".
    > There might be lots of tidbits of information on this list, but finding
    > them is a drag.
    >

    Why is that important. Red Hat did not tell me how to build it. The
    purpose of the CentOS Project is to produce an operating system that you
    can choose to use or not to use. It is not to tell someone else how to
    produce an operating system. Why should I tell someone how to build a
    replacement OS to CentOS. That makes no sense at all.
    http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce...ch/007101.html
    CentOS is for the community ... it is not BUILT buy [sic] the community.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Wow, those are some pretty damning quotes.

    Maybe it's time I start looking into Scientific Linux for our servers. If it's still RHEL/EPEL compatible, it's probably a safer bet all around.

    That or switch back to Debian.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Wow, those are some pretty damning quotes.

    Maybe it's time I start looking into Scientific Linux for our servers. If it's still RHEL/EPEL compatible, it's probably a safer bet all around.

    That or switch back to Debian.
    I could give a shit less about the arrogance that comes from re-building SRPMs, what I care about is the three months without security updates.

    There is nothing enterprise quality in that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    446

    Default

    The first quote sounds reasonable: That is, in fact, not their purpose.

    The second is a bit radical, though, and I'm not sure if he meant to say what he said. If he did, then I am at a loss for words.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1

    Talking

    Am a CentOS user and just upgraded to 5.6 today without any problems. The devs decision to do 5.6 first is because thats what is currently in production and so it is more critical to the installed base than a new version which has to undergo testing before being used in production, I don't remember seeing an objection to this on the list as users agreed with this point of view. Your story fails to mention that even Scientific do not have SL 5.6 out.
    As for the comments I would not bother with those since on the CentOS site they have enough information to get you started contributing towards the project if you want to and I have seen people being given this kind of info on the list, but the main reason for that comment is that the devs and other users too were getting tired of people just keeping asking when the release was going to be over and over again.
    On security updates all security updates to 5.5 were still coming through only those relating to 5.6 were not being delivered since 5.6 was not out yet.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Maybe the CentOS guys are still upset about the way that Red Hat distributes kernel sources in RHEL6.
    No, CentOS and Scientific Linux couldn't care less about that change. They're just rebuilding the package *as it is*, they don't care if they're rebuilding the kernel + a patchset or a kernel which already includes the patchset. If anything, it makes their job a tiny bit easier.

    The change will only potentially annoy Oracle, since Oracle now doesn't have a clean list of the changes that has been made compared to an upstream kernel from kernel.org - they need to figure it out themselves. I assume this will give them some headache when they try to make their own "improved" kernel compatible with the rest of the RHEL userspace applications.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by samnjugu View Post
    On security updates all security updates to 5.5 were still coming through only those relating to 5.6 were not being delivered since 5.6 was not out yet.
    You were not receiving security updates, chief. They back ported what were reported as remotely vulnerable leaving all "local vulnerabilities" un-patched. Keep in mind that if someone has shelled in to your machine without your knowledge all of those local vulnerabilities are now remote vulnerabilities.

    It's a nice shell game, but CentOS is a joke on security.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •