Apologies for starting a new thread but this seems to warrant one.
On another mail list where the issue of Scientific Linux versus RHEL7
has been mentioned in passing, an employee of Red Hat has offered to
seek clarification about the RHEL/CentOS source code
identification/verification/tracing issue with git.centos.org.
Here is the passage (written by me) that the Red Hat employee intends to
pass on for clarification if I take up his offer:
The problem with the source available via Git is that, whilst
no one doubts it is all there, it is apparently not currently
clear to anyone outside of Red Hat or CentOS what is the
unadulterated Red Hat source and what is source altered by
CentOS for its own build. It is not for nothing that the
source is now only being made publicly available via
git.centos.org and not directly from Red Hat. Third parties
such as Scientific Linux (and of course Oracle...) need to know
what is the unadulterated Red Hat source to be able to build
properly.
I understand that discussions are continuing to which I am not
privy but if you can shed light on how to unmistakeably extract
guaranteed Red Hat (rather than possibly altered-for-CentOS-
distribution) source code from git.centos.org then I
am sure the Scientific Linux community would love to hear about
it.
He says:
I am very happy to seek clarification.
May I quote or paraphrase the above?
Should I ask him to go ahead and seek clarification or should I tell him
to drop it? Is it worth taking up his offer, given the email from
CentOS-Devel written by Karanbir Singh and posted here by Yasha Karant
at 13:49:12 -0700, which seems to me to possibly address these source
code identification issues if I understand it correctly?
Would anyone like to craft a better phrased question than my own one
above (which is just a quote from an earlier message in the thread with
him)?
