On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Jed Donnelley wrote:
At 07:43 AM 9/16/2004, David L. Parsley wrote:On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 10:09, Donofrio, Lewis wrote:Is this list still going?
The list still exists apparently, but unfortunately it's not being used.
From my perspective what has happened is that various rebuild projects have developed, e.g. as:
http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-forks.html
and people have gone off and picked up on one or another. At this time there doesn't seem much point in discussing new efforts so much as following and seeing how the existing efforts work out.
We've gone with cAos/Centos (2 and 3) and are pretty happy so far. Our main concern with all the forks is long term support as we have hundreds of workstations and dozens of production servers that we need support for. We also have a few boxes (e.g. Oracle boxes) that we continue to need to run Redhat Enterprise on.
Ever tried migrating a box from one rebuild to another? Just out of interest i tested it with a friend. We installed RHEL3 and migrated it to Tao. I must say that the RHEL was from a plain vanilla install, no updates applied but I guess that doesn't make much difference. All ik took was a forced deinstall of some redhat branded/specific RPMS and forced installing the equivalent Tao RPMS, about half an hour to figure it out for the first time. After that the system was properly recognized as a box running Tao and all Tao updates were applied.
Imho als long as you stick with the same platform of RHEL (2 or 3) it should be possible to migrate fairly easy from one distro to another, after all they are all compiling the same binaries right?
The only problem that may arise is probably with (i think) WhiteBox that started with version number 3.1 which is not following RedHat numbering scheme. As long as the rebuilder sticks fairly close to RHEL things should work out.
Interesting stuff, I'll try another distro shift soon, maybe caos to tao :)
We're hopeful that this paradigm will work out. We will of course follow it closely and mainly focus on the issue of timely updates for security problems. Now we seem to be in a position where we need both Redhat and cAos to thrive for our systems to be effectively supported. I'm sure others using rebuilds are similarly situated. I consider this development something of a turning point at least in Linux development and possible in the more general open source movement. At this point I'm hopeful, but I'm not optimistic that this two stage sort of support will be stable for the long run.
Just some thoughts to share FYI.
--Jed http://www.nersc.gov/~jed/ rhel-rebuild mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
