On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:59:28AM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi Dag,
On 02/23/2011 10:01 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
No they can not. The bottom line is, people can try to reverse engineer the process CentOS is using, but they may never be sure it's like what CentOS did. So your statement is incorrect.
I am not sure how to say this any other way, its been said many times over and over again : we dont use any super magic juice anywhere, its mostly just mock in a for loop. Lets assume that there still exists some fear and doubt somewhere about the process in exact terms.
then lets take up the conversation on list where I said that once 6 is our of the door, I'll document what and how things worked for the build process ( including the pause's and why they took place. Would that remove some of this FUD layers ?
A good start for this is available at http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/
Some further bits are also available in bugzilla reports at redhat.com, so this should really be updated to reflectthe complete data, also from the CentOS project.
Hence my joke that the 'C' in CentOS actually means Closed.
I dont agree, if you said 'C' in CentOS is mispelled 'Slower than ideal', I'd agree :)
That said, if CentOS wants it this way they sure have every right to do it like this. But it would be nice to state that upfront.
Propose a wording snippet ?
Having the discussion on how to move between Closed / Slow / Community is hopefully a good sign for the project. It hurts that rebuilding parts of e.g. 5.6 is so easy and we seem to spoil any efford to combine forces for a quick rebuild that also builds up more and more knowledge for a solid rebuild...
best regards,
Florian La Roche