Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
CentOS 6.1 released
The CentOS 6.1 release is now available;
there have also been announcements for minimal, live
CD, and live DVD variants. Information
on 6.1 can be found in the release
notes.
(Log in to post comments)
debuginfo Posted Dec 11, 2011 19:36 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
is there actually debuginfo this time?
Or is that once again on the list of things that CentOS can't do because it doesn't have the resources, although it simultaneously insists that it isn't interested in receiving donated resources...
debuginfo Posted Dec 11, 2011 19:38 UTC (Sun) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] Is it even worth caring when there's Scientific Linux?
debuginfo Posted Dec 11, 2011 19:59 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
RHEL 6.1 was released 204 days back and 6.2 got released just a few days back. SL seems to be much more up2date. I think, this does matter for everyone concerned about security updates
debuginfo Posted Dec 12, 2011 8:05 UTC (Mon) by Felix (subscriber, #36445) [Link]
CentOS has a continuous release repository (centos-release-cr) for quite a few months now. So you could get security updates long before the actual '6.1' release.
I hope people will stop comparing the final release dates - even if it is a bit more work comparing the release delay by package and weighting them by severity.
debuginfo Posted Dec 12, 2011 15:32 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Unless it is there by default, it is very unlikely the majority of CentOS users would even be aware of such a repository and that leaves them all vulnerable. Hence, updates continue to be a ongoing problem.
If you want to show a comparison package by package, feel free to do that. Otherwise, release dates would continue to be used.
debuginfo Posted Dec 12, 2011 16:11 UTC (Mon) by Felix (subscriber, #36445) [Link]
> Unless it is there by default, it is very unlikely the majority of CentOS users would even be aware of such a repository and that leaves them all vulnerable. Hence, updates continue to be a ongoing problem.
agreed, though I think it should be mentioned not to mislead people (in the end there *is* a difference between optional updates and no updates).
> If you want to show a comparison package by package, feel free to do that. Otherwise, release dates would continue to be used.
That point is not valid. Using distro release dates for a comparison makes your argument void because your data is flawed. The burden of providing correct data is on the one who puts the argument forward. If it's tedious to get that data, well, bad luck (or he has to resort to vague terms which reveals that he can not back his claims with data).
debuginfo Posted Dec 13, 2011 0:05 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I think the comparison of release dates is valid indicator of how active a
project is and if SL does releases and CentOS does not, it is negative against CentOS. There is no flaw in claiming that and it is foolish to ignore it.
debuginfo Posted Dec 17, 2011 4:31 UTC (Sat) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
What I would like to know is why the two are different projects. The bulk of the work (de-trademarking RHEL) appears to be identical, and it'd be trivial to share this work between the two. Why not? Do we really need 2 major and god knows how many minor RHEL-rebuilds?
Sure, SL adds some packages and whatnot, but that could just as well be achieved by simply creating SL and CentOS flavoured media (like Ubuntu/Kubuntu/etc) and having a base repo (that is identical to RHEL) with an SL-extras repo (that is default-on only with the SL media). So what's the point in duplicating this work?
debuginfo Posted Dec 17, 2011 5:52 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
As the centos people could tell you, the difference is that centos achieves complete binary comparability by replicating the build environment for each package so that the compiled result is identical. Scientific Linux doesn't go through this rigorous QA process, and makes other intentional changes so it is more of a work-alike RHEL than a compatible clone.
debuginfo Posted Dec 17, 2011 7:19 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Intentional changes in SL are very very few and clearly documented. Any ABI changes would be treated as bugs. In other words, there is absolutely no reason these two projects cannot work together if they wanted to.
debuginfo Posted Dec 17, 2011 21:45 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
As far as I can tell the centos folks have no interest in help outside a core clique of individuals, they don't trust anyone to do the work the same as they do. From what I've read I don't think they think the ABI compatability of SL is up to their standards.
I am not affiliated with the centos project and am just summarizing what I believe to be true
debuginfo Posted Dec 12, 2011 19:21 UTC (Mon) by lindahl (subscriber, #15266) [Link]
debuginfo does not appear to be present.
Things are looking up Posted Dec 11, 2011 22:41 UTC (Sun) by Felix_the_Mac (guest, #32242) [Link]
Encouraging signs that Centos 6.2 will be released sooner than you might have expected:
|
|||||||||||||