[MythDora] MythDora, RHEL5/CentOS, and atrpms

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 09:10:28AM -0400, Dennis Hand wrote:
> > Well, you can't dictate people what to choose, you can only offer
> > choices, nothing more. :)
> That is so very true.
> 
> > What you call a fork (which I wouldn't) has already happened since
> > years. All the packages for CentOS5 (even CentOS4!) are there and
> > people use them. mythcentos would "simply" do the pungi/livecd
> > thing. And as outlined it's not even half the effort required for
> > doing Fedora based myth live media.
> I guess my concern is, how long will CentOS5 be around for? Will there
> be a CentOS6? If so when will that come out and if different versions
> come out wouldn't that be the same as what we're doing now?

CentOS5/6 are clones, e.g. rebuilds of RHEL5/6, just like Scientific
Linux, WhiteBox etc.

Even if CentOS were not to be around in 2 years, there is so much
demand for RHEL clones that some other entity will be, I'd say that it
far more likely to have RHEL and clones in 2010 than Fedora (but both
will exits in 2010. the probablity just differes in the numbers of 9s
after the "99." ;)

Also the scedule for RHEL is rather known: 18-24 months or rephrased
differently: 3 Fedora releases.

> > (OK, some packages will need some love, like ATI packages which don't
> > exist for RHEL, but I don't expect that to be a showstopper)
> I'm assuming creating custom ATI packages can be done if we wanted?
> Many users have ATI including me ;-)

Sure. We can add this even to ATrpms proper, if someone will maintain it.

> > FWIW the people willing to invest their man power are there (I'll ship
> > whatever package is required in ATrpms or the successor of it). What is
> > missing is someone taking the lead and making it happen.
> 
> And I for one appreciate all that you do and I know you would support
> this. I've asked Ryan Pisani if he would be interested in working on
> this but I believe he is out of the country at the moment. That
> doesn't mean that anyone couldn't if they so desired. I've never
> fooled with CentOS but I assume that it's just like Fedora and things
> are placed in the same way.

Yes, RHEL5 is like a reduced FC6 with some bug fixes.

> If not then some mining tweaking would need to be done to the custom
> rpms we have now. I'm certainly not opposed to this by any means. I
> mean if this is something that is more secure and can be fully
> updated, like a dist-upgrade, without blowing up your build then
> that would be nice.

That's the point. The updates in RHEL are very smooth. Things get
backported and not version-jumped. So if a graphics/capture driver was
building against the RHEL kernel and the kernel get updated to fix
some security bug, you can be rather sure that the driver will still
build (unlike Fedora kernel updates).

> I'm not sure either on what sort of license issues there might be
> Axel. For instance a name, logos, etc. I know that Jarod found out
> that we had to remove some artwork out of the 4.0 version before it
> was released.

If you base it directly off RHEL, yes, but CentOS/Scientific Linux
etc. have already done this for you and replaced with trademark free
parts. You may still want to replace the artwork for aesthetic
reasons, or to identify the CD/DVD cut with mythdora/mythcentos.

> Also if this does materialize Axel, I guess your the
> only one in town that supports a CentOS repository?

No, there are many repos, Dag/Dries (rpmforge), CentOS Extras, KB, SL
contrib and the youngest one is epel a Fedora effort which managed to
push away all the other mentioned. :/

Many of these are going to merge in the near to mid future.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/mythdora/attachments/20070802/98d7cc8f/attachment.bin