Tom Bishop wrote:
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn more...Thanks! :)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@gmail.com mailto:amyagi@gmail.com> wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ... On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu <mailto:lowen@pari.edu>> wrote: > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote: >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more >> nightmarish than before. > > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus. Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :) So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build process and makes me offer the following comment:-/
PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of information about the status of the various build processes and even how to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here - if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.
Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the folk that do the work - go have a look.
It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new meaning to the word "iterative".
My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list. Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that appreciates all that you do.
I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use - I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied with the quality of the product. There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are alternatives - they do cost money. Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and positive manner. Thanks for reading.
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org <mailto:CentOS@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos