I'm sure though if Red Hat decided to go back to a two or three year life cycle then SL's policy would change back to providing security patches over a longer period of time.
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
On Jan 9, 2014 18:39, Ian Murray <murra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/14 23:13, Paul Robert Marino
wrote:
SL is an exact match to RHEL with only a few variations such as the removed the client for Red Hats support site integration and added a few things like AFS because their labs need it. The differences are well documented in the release notes and its a short list.This wasn't my understanding. According to this page https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions ...
In addition SL guarantees long term patch availability even if Red Hat is no longer supporting that release.
" * We plan on following the TUV Life Cycle. Provided TUV continues to make the source rpms publicly available."
... which disagrees with your statement. At least the way I read it.
I am pretty sure the base release does not do this kind of thing by default. It would be a major deviation from being "binary compatible" with upstream vendor, which is how I recall their stated goal to be. It may be optional, however.
CentOS tends to do thing like update the PHP libraries to make it easier for web developers. And as a result they take longer for many security patches because they occasionally hit dependency issues due to the packages they have updated.
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
On Jan 9, 2014 13:17, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
On 01/09/2014 05:54 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:.
> What technical differences would be between CentOS + scientific repo and SL?
>
> Just a personal thought, but maybe this would free some human resources
> for maintaining a lot of scientific (and IT/grid related) packages in
> well established repos (like epel, fedora/rpmfusion)
>
> Thanks!
> Adrian
>
Well, for me the main difference between CentOS and SL is that with SL you can
stay on EL point releases. That would require a major change in the CentOS
infrastructure to support it. Worth exploring though...
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com