Le 20/02/2011 16:56, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
On 02/20/2011 06:37 AM, jean-seb wrote:
Le 20/02/2011 16:31, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
On 02/20/2011 06:11 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Larry Vaden wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> For the vast majority of packages, we make no changes. We rebuild it > and test it. If the binary passes the test, we use it. If the binary > does not pass the test we troubleshoot and figure out why it does not > pass the test ... and we change things OUTSIDE the SRPM to fix the > problem. Yes, and those changes are closed.
Hi Dag,
Help this old former ASR33 operator understand, please: are you saying
- the changes aren't called out in the bug report to the upstream
-or- 2) the bug reports to the upstream aren't timely -or- 3) your choice of words.
You cut away the meat of my message and focussed on the least important bit, the non-transparency. I am more interested how we can do a better job in the future.
Remind you that we have had the same discussions on this list in the past, including the promises that it would be better in the future. And here we are again and the situation is worse than it ever was.
So:
- CentOS is not able to release CentOS 5.6 after 2 months and nobody is allowed to be critical about it.
You call what you are doing NON-CRITICAL? I think you are not only allowed, but are being QUITE CRITICAL about it. I wonder how understanding and nice YOU would be if I came to YOUR mailing list and showed the same level of CRITICALNESS towards something there.
(Despite the fact that the effort to rebuild CentOS 5.6 packages is a lot easier than CentOS 6.0 which is already 3 months late)
- The same 3 people are responsible for CentOS 4, CentOS 5 and CentOS 6. What's more, the fact that there would be three update releases in 3 months was predictable.
So despite all the automation, QA team, past promises and whatnot, we are not doing a better job today and I had hoped at least some people would agree instead of denying there's something wrong with the process and blaming the non-volunteers/community for even bringing it up.
And despite what some people may think, I am not _against_ CentOS, in fact the only reason why I am bringing it up is because * I * still * care !
Thank you for your concern.
Oracle does not have the same issues and they just released their product. SL has not released a final version of their 5.6 or 6.0 either. Maybe you should put this in perspective.
Hello,
Could I ask a simple question: When the Centos6 build (for i386 or x86_64) was release / build at 100% (or close) ?
If your question is, when will the CentOS6 build for i386 or x86_64 be released ... and if you want a hard date, well I can not give you one.
It will be released the DAY we get a build that passes all our checks that I pointed to here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/tmverifyrpms
We will then move it to QA where it will be tested.
Once it is tested (and we fix any issues), it will be released.
It might be 2 weeks from now or 2 months from now. I would like to think it will be closer to 2 weeks, but it will be completed when it gets completed.
I would point out that the original "REAL" CentOS release (version 3.1) took about 6-7 months, from sometime in October 2003 (when development started ) until March 19th, 2004 when there was a release.
No no, I would like to know the date you had build it "almost" completely (there is some @$§! packages that are hard to build using mock), It's to have a reference into the "initial build" (buggy but close to be build) and the first "alpha release", specially for Centos6.
Regards,
js.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel