Hi,
We still have a problem with CentOS-5 updates not being available up to 3 to 7 days after they were announced by Red Hat and appeared on the FTP server.
Additionally, CentOS 4.8 still hasn't been pushed to the QA team.
Let's take 2 examples for C-5 updates, the recent kernel update and the firefox update. According to what I can find:
* firefox 3.0.11-2.el5_3
timestamp on RH ftp: 09 Jun 2009 12:55 announced by RH: 11 Jun 2009 19:22 CEST
built by SL: 12 Jun 2009 17:30 CEST timestamp on SL ftp: 12 Jun 2009 19:39 CEST announced by SL: 12 Jun 2009 22:23 CEST
built by CentOS: 17 Jun 2009 03:03 CEST timestamp on mirror: 19 Jun 2009 11:05 CEST announced by CentOS: 19 Jun 2009 11:07 CEST
* kernel 2.6.18-128.1.15.el5
timestamp on RH ftp: 15 Jun 2009 05:22 announced by RH: 16 Jun 2009 18:39 CEST
built by CentOS: 17 Jun 2009 02:16 CEST timestamp on mirror: 19 Jun 2009 09:43 CEST announced by CentOS: 19 Jun 2009 09:44 CEST
Having te kernel 60h after Red Hat is questionable, but having firefox arrive more than week after Red Hat announced it is probably harder to explain.
The kernel update is of severity Important, but the firefox update is deemed Critical.
Apart from that, we haven't seen CentOS-4.8 hit the QA team for 1 month now. No reports of what is going on or what is stalling the release. Since the QA team will need some time to test installations, we can expect another 2 weeks delay, which would make it 7+ weeks before it hits the mirrors if it would be delivered today, which is unlikely.
So I don't want to be the guy who is serving you the bad news, but unless we do something about it from an organisational point of view, things are unlikely to improve.
So, what can we do about this to improve the situation ?
On 06/20/2009 01:52 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
So, what can we do about this to improve the situation ?
Couple of rhn subscriptions with their binaries being delivered in via an external source would help - a lot.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 08:39:44AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/20/2009 01:52 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
So, what can we do about this to improve the situation ?
Couple of rhn subscriptions with their binaries being delivered in via an external source would help - a lot.
Karanbir, as you know, i can surely do something for that. Is the idea of having a mirror of all the RHN binaries a good one ? What's the real need ?
On 06/20/2009 09:33 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Couple of rhn subscriptions with their binaries being delivered in via an external source would help - a lot.
Karanbir, as you know, i can surely do something for that. Is the idea of having a mirror of all the RHN binaries a good one ? What's the real need ?
yes, it would need to be a complete mirror - you might want to speak with your Red Hat account manager to make sure they dont mind. We would also need it to be updated every 4 to 6 hrs.
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/20/2009 09:33 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Couple of rhn subscriptions with their binaries being delivered in via an external source would help - a lot.
Karanbir, as you know, i can surely do something for that. Is the idea of having a mirror of all the RHN binaries a good one ? What's the real need ?
yes, it would need to be a complete mirror - you might want to speak with your Red Hat account manager to make sure they dont mind. We would also need it to be updated every 4 to 6 hrs.
This raises 2 questions to me. First, why would Red Hat mind if entitlemens that have been paid for are being used to validate CentOS builds ?
Second, we currently have money from donations and sponsorship that has not been used for a few years. Using this money for Red Hat entitlements seems valid as it benefits all CentOS users if it helps with providing updates faster.
So either we get entitlements sponsored directly, or being paid for with donated money, both seem valid options that Red Hat cannot object against.
Maybe we should make a list of all the entitlements the CentOS project needs (both for the distribution as maybe also seperate channels ?) and then look for people willing to help raise that amount of money or find sponsors willing to pay for the entitlements that are linked to a CentOS account on RHN.
Good Morning,
On 06/20/2009 09:33 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Couple of rhn subscriptions with their binaries being delivered in via an external source would help - a lot.
Karanbir, as you know, i can surely do something for that. Is the idea of having a mirror of all the RHN binaries a good one ? What's the real need ?
yes, it would need to be a complete mirror - you might want to speak with your Red Hat account manager to make sure they dont mind. We would also need it to be updated every 4 to 6 hrs.
This raises 2 questions to me. First, why would Red Hat mind if entitlemens that have been paid for are being used to validate CentOS builds ?
Second, we currently have money from donations and sponsorship that has not been used for a few years. Using this money for Red Hat entitlements seems valid as it benefits all CentOS users if it helps with providing updates faster.
So either we get entitlements sponsored directly, or being paid for with donated money, both seem valid options that Red Hat cannot object against.
Maybe we should make a list of all the entitlements the CentOS project needs (both for the distribution as maybe also seperate channels ?) and then look for people willing to help raise that amount of money or find sponsors willing to pay for the entitlements that are linked to a CentOS account on RHN.
I could at least sponsor a few entitlements.
Best Regards Marcus
-
Dag Wieers -
Dag Wieers -
Fabian Arrotin -
Karanbir Singh -
Marcus Moeller