On 15/02/11 02:48, Brian Mathis wrote:

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:05 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:

...

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:00:43PM -0400, robert mena wrote:

...

Hi,

Despite the mailing list and twitter I did not find any updated info on either versions regarding the current status.

So, what is the current status of both versions? (like 60%)

   Your request just moved it back by 15% and 2 weeks, not to
   mention all the innocent kittens that were killed.

                                                   John

I wish people would take these requests as:

"Hey guys, I really love this project and I know there's a new

version on the way. I've been following all the right places for news, but I just can't contain my excitement. Does anyone know when the next release is? I'm more excited about it than most people are about Apple's new iThing"

...and react accordingly. Instead, we get: Don't bother people. Get off my lawn. Go pay for it if you want it so bad.

To be fair this thread hasn't been as bad as most, but reflecting some excitement is free. Anyway, here's my response:

Hey man, I'm just as excited as you. I really want to see what C6 looks like and to start playing with it. I'm so happy there's a modern kernel and recent packages so I don't have to hunt them down. I think C6 is going to be really cool. I know the CentOS guys put in a lot of work and I have a lot of respect for them, but they're busy with real life too. KB posted something on his Twitter, but you know how deadlines can be. Stuff comes up. All we can really do is wait until it comes out. If you wanted to help out, here's a link for info on how to do that... [someone please fill in link here].

+1 ... Such feedback would really be a lot better than anything else. Keep people in the darkness, and they'll start looking for the light switch ... provide them with a candle, and they'll sit more calmness, observing and having fun.

kind regards,

David Sommerseth

Heretic! You've caused a turbulence on the force. The Gods of Kobol won't answer your requests anymore!!

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens < mstevens@imt-systems.com> wrote:

2011/2/14 robert mena robert.mena@gmail.com:

...

Hi, Despite the mailing list and twitter I did not find any updated info on either versions regarding the current status. So, what is the current status of both versions? (like 60%)

I wonder for a long time why there is no detailed information about the release status.

For example:

1. Upstream 5.6 release
2. rebuilding packages (2-3 days)
3. CentOS patches (1-7 days)
4. QA (2-3 weeks)
5. distribution on the mirrors (3-4 days)
6. CentOS 5.6 Release

A small roadmap would certainly help many users.

Best regards,

Morten _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

on 2/14/2011 1:50 PM Morten P.D. Stevens spake the following:

2011/2/14 robert mena robert.mena@gmail.com:

...

Hi, Despite the mailing list and twitter I did not find any updated info on either versions regarding the current status. So, what is the current status of both versions? (like 60%)

I wonder for a long time why there is no detailed information about the release status.

For example:

1. Upstream 5.6 release
2. rebuilding packages (2-3 days)
3. CentOS patches (1-7 days)
4. QA (2-3 weeks)
5. distribution on the mirrors (3-4 days)
6. CentOS 5.6 Release

A small roadmap would certainly help many users.

Best regards,

Morten

I suppose the CentOS devs have other minor duties like feeding families, taking children to ball games and dance recitals, helping with homework, etc... The dev staff is not large, and any time spent answering "is it done yet" queries will slow them down further.

I never ask, and never complain, since I don't feel this totally free product owes me anything... As a matter of fact, we owe the project...

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:24 -0800, Scott Silva wrote:

I suppose the CentOS devs have other minor duties like feeding families, taking children to ball games and dance recitals, helping with homework, etc...

Don't forget all the jobs that need doing in and around the house AND finding time to be a loving and attentive spouse AND talking to and seeing friends etc. AND getting at least 8 hours sleep a day etc.

Perhaps they even have a 'real' daytime job too .....

The dev staff is not large, and any time spent answering "is it done yet" queries will slow them down further.

I never ask, and never complain, since I don't feel this totally free product owes me anything... As a matter of fact, we owe the project...

Amen.

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 18:18 -0800, R - elists wrote:

...

I never ask, and never complain, since I don't feel this totally free product owes me anything... As a matter of fact, we owe the project...

Scott,

yes, we all owe the CentOS project in some way...

thing is, IDFR if we have ever been fully updated on the Open Letter problem(s) with the project...

im all for seeing the CentOS team get paychecks etc...

yet, a cash donations portal has not been an available option for a long looonnnngggggg time...

professionally, we desire to see a small fee subscription model for support of all the people/project overhead...

• rh

I too would like to see the donations get set back up again and from I have heard in the rumor mill is that later this year hopefully in the first quarter this will be up and running again. I inquired about it awhile ago cuz I would like to donate monthly to the project. So hang in there things are getting better it is just taking some time to get it all set up.

LostSon

CentOS - Its Not Just For Servers Ya Know...

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:18:02PM -0800, R - elists wrote:

professionally, we desire to see a small fee subscription model for support of all the people/project overhead...

Who is this "we" you speak of?

John

On 2/15/2011 9:56 AM, R - elists wrote:

the "we" that we speak of is "our" organization, *not* of or for CentOS and it's assigns

we believe that CentOS could do more and that (humble opinion) the CentOS team should be financially compensated fairly for their efforts on all of our behalf...

How would they be different from Oracle if they did that as a business?

Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have:

1. When is it going to be out

2. If they had donations, it would be out faster

3. The team spends needless energy trying to cool things down on the lists, delaying the release if only for a bit, and it frustrates them

And we know that you can expect the release from the upstream vendor to take 4-8 weeks before it hits the CentOS repository.

And we're well within that window with plenty of time to go before it expires (not to mention a major holiday in that window, and TWO releases going on at once), and the CentOS boards clearly say that we're close to the release of 5.6...it should be seeded very soon to the mirrors.

It would be like at Christmas, in early December... mom and dad haven't given us any presents yet. Maybe if we got them more money, we'd get the presents faster. If they needed money, they'd ask for it.

Can't we just enjoy the anticipation for once? Please?

******************************************************************************* Gilbert Sebenste ******** (My opinions only!) ****** *******************************************************************************

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM, David Sommerseth < dazo@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

Is it really too much to ask for information on the progress? And frankly, these references below doesn't shed too much light on the situation

List,

Please relax. The CentOS team are doing their job.

We aren't client or customers, we are supporters.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:50:55PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:

Exactly! Supporters who could most probably do even more, than just to sit here idle waiting for the next release - if we only knew what the issues are they are facing.

I find it amusing that all these offers of help and assistance, even the round-about ones such as this, occur when people get antsy about the release. Did you step up when the call for people to get involved at the very beginning of the CentOS 6 release cycle occurred? From everything I've heard on the various IRC channels the response to that initial call for help was, shall we say, lackluster at best.

It's incredibly easy to consume; much more difficult to produce.

And no, I am not singling out _you_, specifically, on this. But between the people on this list wanting the release to happen and wanting updates, and those on the forums that I can only describe as "possessed by a large sense of entitlement" as compared to the people that have actually contributed time and effort into making it a reality I see a huge discrepancy. And no, I've done nothing whatsoever to contribute either, other than not pester them for updates and demanding a release to occur on my time-line rather than theirs.

If people want transparency in the process (which I include myself in to some extent; I feel things could, and honestly should, be more open, for some value of more) then I must point out that the project's upstream provides no transparency at all, including a complete lack of release time-line. If they don't do so, why all the clamoring for CentOS to do so? Just a thought.

John

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:46:19PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:

I, and I suspect many other Centos users too, do not indulge in IRC. We have better things to do with our scarce time.

That's nice. You do realize, I hope, that the centos dev team is on IRC on a near daily basis; and for a project such as this IRC makes more sense than mailing lists or forums?

In the future, perhaps the 'call' should be shared with the readership of this mailing list.

Postings were made to the lists; I don't have a message ID, nor do I have either the time at the moment to search, or the inclination to do so. The archives are public and searchable, however, if you find the desire to do so.

John

On 2/16/11, Always Learning centos@g7.u22.net wrote:

In the future, perhaps the 'call' should be shared with the readershi of this mailing list.

Always,

There is no negotiation, there will only be an announcement on the list when 5.6 is done.

2011/2/16 David Sommerseth dazo@users.sourceforge.net:

That Red Hat keeps their work schedule private is not directly comparable to a CentOS community effort, how I see it.

Red Hat is also a big financial organisation, which CentOS is not.  In that context, Red Hat is much more responsible for stock holders, informing the stock market on economical issues.  And market speculations needs to be controlled much more differently.  It will be market speculations, like it or not, no matter what, all which most often are related to product releases.  In addition, Red Hat also are responsible for customer and partner agreements, certification training, etc, etc.

It's a big machinery, which is tightly connected to the Open Source work Red Hat does.  And revealing some of the Open Source process might reveal other things indirectly, which makes the market speculate more wildly.

CentOS does not need to be responsible for a board of stock holders (or what the proper term is), partners, (paying) customers, training organisations, etc, etc.  In such regard, CentOS is quite more lucky - it can focus primarily on the Open Source part.

Red Hat does also much more than just pulling the pieces together to form the RHEL distribution.  These pieces are improved continuously to make them work well in the big distribution perspective, as well making sure it is tested on a vast variety of certified hardware [1].

CentOS basically takes the core result of all those processes and the labour Red Hat has put into RHEL, strips out/replaces the trademarks with CentOS replacements, recompiles everything and have a release ready.

Hence, the CentOS process should, in theory at least, be a lot easier than the RHEL process - the majority of the hard work is already done when Red Hat delivers an installable RHEL distribution.  Given that CentOS can focus primarily on the Open Source part, it should also be able to be more transparent on its process.

Hi David,

You're absolutely right.

The best example is Scientific Linux. There are schedules and an open development process.

What is the reason for the closed development process in CentOS?

Best regards,

Morten

On 16/02/11 15:47, Karanbir Singh wrote:

On 02/16/2011 02:22 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:

...

The best example is Scientific Linux. There are schedules and an open development process.

What is the reason for the closed development process in CentOS?

Its funny you say that Morten, since you actually offered to help. Didnt you ? But then when I asked you to look at something specific, you backed off saying you had other things to do ( I remember being quite taken aback by your response at the time ).

If whoever wants to help out in a community project, and then see that when a task come and then gives a response that this was the wrong timing, due to other obligations - this is pretty fair response.

Committing to a community project does not mean you have the resources available for your disposal whenever you need it. People committing to a community project just gives you an idea that people are interested in helping out.

Why you dont you just stick to lurking, since you clearly dont actually want to do anything to help - just get in the way and try to make a lot of noise you dont either understand or want to put any effort into understanding.

Would you call that a fair take on the state of your envolvement Morten ?

Okay, I see that the CentOS developers are under a high pressure and stress level. Maybe a too high stress level. So I'm willing to stretch myself that far to see this incident in that light.

Even though I do not know the background for this attack, I do dislike this kind of personal attacks - at least in the full public. I'm disappointed to see such happening here by the key people in the CentOS community.

kind regards,

David Sommerseth

2011/2/16 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:

On 02/16/2011 02:22 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:

...

The best example is Scientific Linux. There are schedules and an open development process.

What is the reason for the closed development process in CentOS?

Its funny you say that Morten, since you actually offered to help. Didnt you ? But then when I asked you to look at something specific, you backed off saying you had other things to do ( I remember being quite taken aback by your response at the time ).

Why you dont you just stick to lurking, since you clearly dont actually want to do anything to help - just get in the way and try to make a lot of noise you dont either understand or want to put any effort into understanding.

Would you call that a fair take on the state of your envolvement Morten ?

Karanbir, this is not quite right. And you know it. I offered my help for testing. (qa process)

You have offered me to help with packages that need upstream branding removed. This is very difficult to realize when the primary mailing list (centos-qa) is completely closed to outsiders.

Many people (including me) would like to CentOS help if the development process would be more open.

I think you are doing a great job with CentOS! And for that you have my full appreciation.

Best regards,

Morten

Hi David,

On 02/16/2011 12:50 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:

Exactly! Supporters who could most probably do even more, than just to sit here idle waiting for the next release - if we only knew what the issues are they are facing.

So what happened in the early days of when EL6 came out - we asked people to help, there were many threads on how people could get involved ( on the centos-devel list, which is - I am sure you will agree, the appropriate place ). Nothing happened, not one person beyond the usual-people actually did anything.

After a few weeks, when people started getting antsy about the fact that they cant see progress (I dont know why they would care, given they dont want to help) more noise started getting made about how we ( and i mean the people doing the work ) were being difficult and not open. So the process of asking for help started again in mid/late December. A few people did get involved and we did see some level of open involvement. Even at the cost of not doing anything ourselves, but spending all of our open source time on helping people get into the right mindset and educating them to get into helpful situations.

Things tapered off again with near zero momentum.

Now the bit that really cheeses me off is that we cant go through the same loop again and again everytime someone new comes along and cant be bothered to see what has happened in the past. I am not saying you did this, its possible you didnt know about the existence of these threads on centos-devel etc.

To cut a long story short - lots of people who use centos dont understand what the project is about, what we do, why we do it and how they can help. On the other hand, we also seem unable to hold people's attention ( and i mean people at large, not just the centos community ) in order to get them thinking about the project ( and not the distro, remember project != distro, needs of the hour are trivial, needs for the project to sustain and exist are more important ).

We can try to solve these problems now, or we can get the distro's out - then goto solving these issues. As many have suggested, and I partially buy into - solving the problems while there is a need for the distro is likely to get a better and wider reception. On the other hand, getting the distro's out gets more urgent with every package release upstream and app release side-stream / internet / inhouse etc.

The problems can be solved. Of all similar projects I know of and have had the privilege to be a part of, none come close to the maturity and pragmatic thought levels that the CentOS community has. On the other hand, the drive-by posters and people with random fluff to not-really-contribute are always going to an issue. I guess its reasonable to expect them around as well, serves as a nice reminder as to what the extreme sets are.

For now, as was really decided on the centos-devel list, lets just do things the way centos has in the past. lets get the distro's out - and then look at solving specific issues. The whole idea that people cant help is just noise, hopefully the website ver2 project will make that visible a bit more than has been so far. I do know that once the distro's are out; the number of people wanting to 'help' is also going to fall drastically. On the other hand, the ones who do stick around are all people who really do want to help!

Regards,

- KB

On 16/02/11 15:58, Karanbir Singh wrote:

Hi David,

On 02/16/2011 12:50 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:

...

Exactly! Supporters who could most probably do even more, than just to sit here idle waiting for the next release - if we only knew what the issues are they are facing.

So what happened in the early days of when EL6 came out - we asked people to help, there were many threads on how people could get involved ( on the centos-devel list, which is - I am sure you will agree, the appropriate place ). Nothing happened, not one person beyond the usual-people actually did anything.

I understand centos-devel might seem to be the proper place to ask for help. But sometimes, I believe it's better to have a much broader audience for such messages.

However, let this be a discussion after CentOS5.6 and CentOS6 is released. Rather start a new fresh thread when everyone (especially developers) have had some rest after the releases.

[...snip...]

Now the bit that really cheeses me off is that we cant go through the same loop again and again everytime someone new comes along and cant be bothered to see what has happened in the past. I am not saying you did this, its possible you didnt know about the existence of these threads on centos-devel etc.

This I've been seeing in many other projects as well. However, those places where this happens the least, are where there are some communication of the progress.

And I admit I have not paid too much attention to the centos-devel list. Basically, because I know the next CentOS releases will come when they come. But I would like to know more about the progress, which has been my agenda in today's mails. That is something which, in my eyes (I might be wrong though), belongs more to this generic list.

To cut a long story short - lots of people who use centos dont understand what the project is about, what we do, why we do it and how they can help. On the other hand, we also seem unable to hold people's attention ( and i mean people at large, not just the centos community ) in order to get them thinking about the project ( and not the distro, remember project != distro, needs of the hour are trivial, needs for the project to sustain and exist are more important ).

And this is indeed challenging. And you probably need a combination of what Fedora does with their ambassadors and what Canonical manages with profiling Ubuntu as a Linux distribution for "everyone", to be able to get the "people at large" scale.

Unfortunately, CentOS will most likely be for a more narrow group ... those who wants a stable release for a long time. Which basically ends up mostly being on servers, as the desktop side needs to be much more a moving target against newer versions. And this is practically the same issues RHEL fights with as well.

We can try to solve these problems now, or we can get the distro's out - then goto solving these issues. As many have suggested, and I partially buy into - solving the problems while there is a need for the distro is likely to get a better and wider reception. On the other hand, getting the distro's out gets more urgent with every package release upstream and app release side-stream / internet / inhouse etc.

I agree with you, that solving issues is definitely the way to go. However, when you only solve issues along the way without providing any information on why things takes time - and it begins to take a lot of time, then people begin to want to see results.

Again, as I've said many times today, providing *some* information on the progress can calm things down for a while. But keeping people in the darkness, will result in a lot of noise.

The problems can be solved. Of all similar projects I know of and have had the privilege to be a part of, none come close to the maturity and pragmatic thought levels that the CentOS community has. On the other hand, the drive-by posters and people with random fluff to not-really-contribute are always going to an issue. I guess its reasonable to expect them around as well, serves as a nice reminder as to what the extreme sets are.

Absolutely!

For now, as was really decided on the centos-devel list, lets just do things the way centos has in the past. lets get the distro's out - and then look at solving specific issues. The whole idea that people cant help is just noise, hopefully the website ver2 project will make that visible a bit more than has been so far. I do know that once the distro's are out; the number of people wanting to 'help' is also going to fall drastically. On the other hand, the ones who do stick around are all people who really do want to help!

Good! And it's a good thing that you're looking into more visibility. I believe this can remove, or at least reduce, some of the impatience and restlessness which can be found on this list.

People come and go, in all kind of projects, and major releases gives a lot of attraction - especially when things are based on such big products as RHEL.

kind regards,

David Sommerseth

On 16/02/11 16:40, Karanbir Singh wrote:

Hi,

On 02/16/2011 03:38 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:

...

However, let this be a discussion after CentOS5.6 and CentOS6 is released. Rather start a new fresh thread when everyone (especially developers) have had some rest after the releases.

Right, well volunteered to setup and get this conversation traction once the time-is-right :)

Of course, if I just had a concrete date to aim for, I could set up a reminder in my calender ;-) (just kidding of course!)

David S.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Always Learning centos@g7.u22.net wrote:

Perhaps a mailing list entitle Centos Devoir (home work / jobs to do) could carry a regular list of jobs that need doing ?

+1

On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:

On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:

...

Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have:

For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after RHEL6.

The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their "Build Roots" in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM).

These "phantom" RPMS (non released by Red Hat, but in their build tree for their initial development of the OS) are sometimes very hard to replicate. They are versions that are no where to be found.

Oracle has supposedly released their EL 6 build (last Friday) ... but they have not released their sources as of this post.

http://oss.oracle.com/el5/ <=== EL 5 Sources

http://oss.oracle.com/el6/ <=== 404 Error

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

It's amazing how much smoother things would be, in regards to controlling the anticipation *if* we could find some regular updates on the progress.

We don't need exact dates, but an idea of how the progress is going. Also some progress information of what is troublesome? What is taking time? How can the rest of the community help? This information could be given out even bi-weekly, and I'm sure it would calm down this tension a lot.

And how much more time does that add to the development process. It is already taking too long for you, so you want the developers to spend more time on other things? They don't have enough time now to spend on CentOS, how is adding time to the process going to help. When they try, it is seen as not enough (see you comments below).

The whole CentOS release progress is surprisingly closed, considering it is an open source project.

CentOS releases our source on exactly the same day as our binary files.

We published scripts and RPMS on how we generate our build system, on how we check our binaries, on how we generate our ISOs. How is that not open? (See if you can get Red Hat or Oracle to tell you what they use as a build engine for their enterprise products ...)

We do not KNOW how long it is going to take to get this right .. especially CentOS 6. We have NO IDEA what problems we are going to incur until we hit them. There is NO WAY to know what RPM is not going to build correctly until it fails to build. There is no way to figure out why it did not build until you see the errors.

Sometimes the build of a package seems complete, but the package does not contain the correct files or it is not linked against the correct packages. Sometimes the order of building the packages is important. Sometimes there are interim build packages that upstream had in their build roots that do not exist anywhere outside their build system, and that impacts how things build.

We have to design a whole new build system for the new TREE, we have to bootstrap the packages in the correct order to build the tree. Once we have that tree, we need to build it again. Sometimes the underlying OS that the build roots run in (Build roots get built dynamically to build each package in a clean environment) matters.

The bottom line is that is process is trial and error, especially the first one in a series (the .0 build).

Is it really too much to ask for information on the progress? And frankly, these references below doesn't shed too much light on the situation

http://twitter.com/centos http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php http://planet.centos.org/

I'm sorry if I've missed some other more obvious places with more updated information ... so if that is the case, please enlighten me.

If you want timely enterprise open source software, you should:

1. Pay for it from RHEL 2. Learn to build it yourself, then you can ask yourself how long it is going to take. You still won't know ... but you will know who you yell at.

2011/2/16 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:

Oracle has supposedly released their EL 6 build (last Friday) ... but they have not released their sources as of this post.

http://oss.oracle.com/el5/     <=== EL 5 Sources

http://oss.oracle.com/el6/     <=== 404 Error

No, the sources are here: http://oss.oracle.com/ol6/

And the RPMs: http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/0/base/

Best regards,

Morten

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Scott Robbins scottro@nyc.rr.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:54:14PM +0100, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:

...

2011/2/16 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org:

...

No, the sources are here: http://oss.oracle.com/ol6/

And the RPMs: http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/0/base/

Note that, according to its FAQ, the repo is only the contents of the install media.  It will not provide updates, not even security updates.

To further aggravate me, at least, if no one else, Oracle does not yet (as of today, at least), support Oracle Linux 6 as a hardware platform for Oracle database.

Well, if you believe in YUM (as I want to and do to the limit of my understanding), that's not a problem unless Seth Vidal says it is.

That said, I believe there are a couple of hurdles that Oracle threw in to make it more difficult, but I have watched a lot of Dennis Miller and could be wrong about that.

kind regards/ldv/rural ISP/WISP

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before those missing src.rpms are released?

CentOS releases our source on exactly the same day as our binary files.

We published scripts and RPMS on how we generate our build system, on how we check our binaries, on how we generate our ISOs. How is that not open? (See if you can get Red Hat or Oracle to tell you what they use as a build engine for their enterprise products ...)

Can you send a link to the docs/scripts? This is something many people have been asking for.

Thanks!

-- Pasi

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 02/18/2011 02:26 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before those missing src.rpms are released?

Theoretically, it can not be built, so certainly not *released*, until we have all the SRPMS, no.

If said SRPMS are on one of the release Source ISOs, then we have them available there, if they are not then we are stuck.

Johnny,

Does http://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/source/SRPMS/vendor/ contain anything y'all need that you don't already have?

kind regards/ldv/vaden@texoma.net

On 02/18/2011 09:29 AM, Ned Slider wrote:

On 18/02/11 15:12, Larry Vaden wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Johnny Hughesjohnny@centos.org wrote:

...

On 02/18/2011 02:26 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before those missing src.rpms are released?

Theoretically, it can not be built, so certainly not *released*, until we have all the SRPMS, no.

If said SRPMS are on one of the release Source ISOs, then we have them available there, if they are not then we are stuck.

Johnny,

Doeshttp://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/source/SRPMS/vendor/ contain anything y'all need that you don't already have?

No disrespect Larry, but pulling missing SRPM packages from Scientific Linux is not the answer. The answer lies in comparing those packages available on Red Hat's public ftp servers with those in the distro and filing bugs against the missing SRPM packages. Red hat are usually quick to respond to such issues.

We have mad Red Hat aware of the missing SRPMS.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote:

On 18/02/11 15:12, Larry Vaden wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Johnny Hughesjohnny@centos.org  wrote:

...

On 02/18/2011 02:26 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before those missing src.rpms are released?

Theoretically, it can not be built, so certainly not *released*, until we have all the SRPMS, no.

If said SRPMS are on one of the release Source ISOs, then we have them available there, if they are not then we are stuck.

Johnny,

Doeshttp://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/source/SRPMS/vendor/ contain anything y'all need that you don't already have?

No disrespect Larry, but pulling missing SRPM packages from Scientific Linux is not the answer. The answer lies in comparing those packages available on Red Hat's public ftp servers with those in the distro and filing bugs against the missing SRPM packages. Red hat are usually quick to respond to such issues.

No disrepect, Ned, but with http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06510, I'm wondering if RH is treating the CentOS project differently than the national labs. You may not find that interesting, but perhaps I am not as alone as you might think. RH and CentOS have been fundamental to our operation going on 15 years. Karanbir and Johnny et al have made great contributions to the community.

I personally don't see how the RH team could have screwed up and omitted SRPMs from the manifest, but I certainly believe they did according to reports.

kind regards/ldv/vaden@texoma.net

On 02/18/2011 11:03 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:50:23AM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:

...

I personally don't see how the RH team could have screwed up and omitted SRPMs from the manifest, but I certainly believe they did according to reports.

At some point do you think perhaps you can learn how to trim replies to only that which is germane to the reply and not include all the cascade text and attributions which proceeded it as a courtesy to others on this list?

It seems that nearly every release there are SRPMs that fail to make it to Redhat's public ftp server. It happens during releases and it happens for normal updates and is nothing new. It's simple human error, not a conspiracy to harm CentOS or any other rebuilding effort. Can you please keep the conspiracy nonsense to yourself?

					John

I thought the big thing made about bottom posting is so you can see the whole thread. If you cut out a bunch then you might as well top post.

centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:

On 02/18/2011 11:03 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:50:23AM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:

I personally don't see how the RH team could

have ... a conspiracy to harm CentOS or any other rebuilding effort.

Can you please keep

the conspiracy nonsense to yourself?

						John

I thought the big thing made about bottom posting is so you can see the whole thread. If you cut out a bunch then you might as well top post.

Trimming nothing, so the reply isn't visible in the first page, is poor style.

Trimming everything, so the reply has no context, is poor style.

Blackberry and mobile devices (being bandwidth limited) are much more efficient if top-posting is used.

Top-post vs bottom-post is a purely religious war; my value of $DIETY is chocolate .:. I don't care.

I *did*, however, figure out how to make Microsoft Outlook default to bottom posting:

==> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/ <== (love at first sight)

Enough. Larry Vaden seems to get his jollies by working at provoking flamewars and other irritations, while contributing actually nothing to the topic of the list.

Wonder if, 16 or so years ago, his idea of "fun" was cascades of "I love Mentos" threads in newsgroups who he had no interest in.

Anyway, listmaster, I vote to kick him off the list.

mark, who already decided to delete pointless email from him

Larry Vaden wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:

...

       Can you please keep the conspiracy nonsense to yourself?

                                                       John

-- Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offense. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy.

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

As a List Mom wannabe, please follow the list guidelines at http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html. When I see you practicing what you are preaching for a week or so, I'll consider your input once again. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Scot P. Floess wrote:

What is really sad, if one searches Larry's name on Linked In, he appears to be the CEO Internet Texoma, Inc.

I'd expect better behavior and conduct from someone who holds such a title...

He's a manager! Probably wears a tie! PHB alert.... <g>

mark

...

Enough. Larry Vaden seems to get his jollies by working at provoking flamewars and other irritations, while contributing actually nothing to the topic of the list.

-- Scot P. Floess RHCT (Certificate Number 605010084735240) Chief Architect FlossWare http://sourceforge.net/projects/flossware http://flossware.sourceforge.net https://github.com/organizations/FlossWare _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Fair enough - "not only am I the president, but I'm also a client too" :D

In all seriousness, I'd think representing his own company, he'd be more professional in that representation...

In an industry where one-man companies are not uncommon, you learn to never read too much into titles. :)

On Friday, February 18, 2011 02:54:38 pm Ray Van Dolson wrote:

In an industry where one-man companies are not uncommon, you learn to never read too much into titles. :)

True enough.

While my title is 'CIO' it probably should be 'IT Department' as I only have a consultant and a group of volunteers to help me out. But the title does open doors that other titles would not open, in those venues where such things count. Bob Hawkins at EMC calls me 'Mr. Make-Do' and I have been tempted to get some cards printed with that title on them....

On tech lists I find the title to be more of a negative, since the word 'suit' ends up being bandied about.....the only time I wear a suit is when the occasion demands (like the Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina is visiting). Otherwise it's mostly 'business casual' and even jeans, depending upon what I'm doing that day.....

In any case, that's one reason I typically drop the .sig completely on this and other lists, unless the situation warrants.

The problem with being essentially a one-man IT department (or a one or two or three man distribution release team) is that can create bottlenecks.

And I've found that having help doesn't always reduce the workload or make the work go faster, and I'm sure Karanbir and Johnny and the others doing the release (you know who you are) would agree.

Or, to pull out the standard computer science / information systems reference, read 'The Mythical Man-Month' and get enlightened.

On Friday, February 18, 2011 03:36:58 pm Ray Van Dolson wrote:

Obviously always exceptions.... but as you alluded to, "know your audience" is a good rule of thumb.

Public Speaking 101.

Also 'Linux Distribution 101' in reality; the CentOS audience consists largely of those wanting as close to upstream EL as is possible without the associated monetary costs. CentOS meets a very definite need for, and has a very distinct audience in, those who must have binary-level compatibilty with the upstream EL, bugs and all.

And I would hazard to say that most, if not up to 90%, of CentOS users have zero desire for 'release early, release often' but prefer 'release correctly, and release infrequently.' For my servers, I distinctly prefer the latter, since I do run things that require EL binary compatibility and would be seriously problematic were they to break because of an update.

If 'release early, release often' is your motto, but you still want EL binary compatibility, then SL is going to be more your thing. If you want bleeding edge and everything fully upstream up to date, give Fedora a whirl (and it'll make you dizzy, which might be a good thing (I run Fedora on my laptop, for instance...)).

And those who want to see how things are done in Fedora, the complete process is documented in depth in the Release Engineering SOP wiki page at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP

For that matter, if you wanted to re-compose an EL6 rebuild, you would actually find it highly educational to do it the Fedora way, since EL6 is somewhat based on F12. The scripts for Fedora are there, and the procedures are there; have fun!

The SOP's you would be most interested in would be the Mass Rebuild and the Compose.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 08:19:16PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:

Larry, please take my advice and get help or, at the very least, talk to someone about the matters troubling you. It is bad to hold everything inside you. Please share your problems with someone you can relate to. It is for your own benefit.

Simply... wow.

You know, as much as I can't stand Vaden, and believe me when I say that instead of pulling him from a burning car wreck I'd likely instead pull up a chair and toast marshmallows, your post comes across as perhaps the most condescending tripe-filled post ever on this list. I'm not quite sure whether to congratulate you or ask you not to do it again. And this is a thread populated by condescension, including posts of Vaden's.

In either case.... wow.

John

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Always Learning centos@g7.u22.net wrote:

Larry, please take my advice and get help or, at the very least, talk to someone about the matters troubling you. It is bad to hold everything inside you. Please share your problems with someone you can relate to. It is for your own benefit.

Paul, I did as you suggest. An extract of said post is below the sig. There wasn't a single response (I could be wrong about that, but don't believe that is the case at this time).

kind regards/ldv/vaden@texoma.net

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Larry Vaden vaden@texoma.net Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM Subject: sources of bind-9.7.2-P3 rpms for Centos 4.8 and 5.5? To: centos@centos.org

Our site running Centos 4.8 and 5.5 name servers was hacked with the result that www.yahoo.com is now within our /19 and causing some grief. Google hasn't led me to an RPM for bind-9.7.2-P3 nor has the search facility at centos.org.  However, it is obvious from said searches that Mandriva upgraded last year. An attempt to install bind-9.7.2-P3 from source yields the warning below the sig for both 4.8 and 5.5 machines. Does anyone know of RPMs that address the security issues involved? RANT: does anyone know of the upstream's justification for providing such old code? kind regards/ldv WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING         Your OpenSSL crypto library may be vulnerable to        WARNING WARNING         one or more of the the following known security         WARNING WARNING         flaws:                                                  WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING         CAN-2002-0659, CAN-2006-4339, CVE-2006-2937 and         WARNING WARNING         CVE-2006-2940.                                          WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING         It is recommended that you upgrade to OpenSSL           WARNING WARNING         version 0.9.8d/0.9.7l (or greater).                     WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING         You can disable this warning by specifying:             WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING               --disable-openssl-version-check                   WARNING WARNING                                                                 WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING [root@shell bind-9.7.2-P3]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.5 (Final) [root@shell bind-9.7.2-P3]#

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 14:13, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

On 02/18/2011 02:26 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either.

So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before those missing src.rpms are released?

Theoretically, it can not be built, so certainly not *released*, until we have all the SRPMS, no.

If said SRPMS are on one of the release Source ISOs, then we have them available there, if they are not then we are stuck.

...

...

CentOS releases our source on exactly the same day as our binary files.

We published scripts and RPMS on how we generate our build system, on how we check our binaries, on how we generate our ISOs.  How is that not open?  (See if you can get Red Hat or Oracle to tell you what they use as a build engine for their enterprise products ...)

Can you send a link to the docs/scripts? This is something many people have been asking for.

This directory contains a script that we use to build the "Distribution", as well as the script we use to check a built RPM against a known binary RPM:

http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/build/distro/

We use mock to build our packages.  There is a version of mock available in EPEL.

The "minimum build roots" that CentOS uses are published here:

http://dev.centos.org/centos/buildsys/

Johnny I really _really_ respect your former work on centos, but it seems you don't take part on the real rebuild nowadays (probably that's reason why you refer to rhel-4). The above is nothing, and nobody can rebuild based on those scripts and it's really far from the really required framework. and please don't ask me to why. just to mention some very basic thing where is the mock config files? and i can ask dozens of such questions (what is did previously and i'm the only only one who send detail description how to rebuild rhel-6...

On Friday, February 18, 2011 01:39:48 pm Farkas Levente wrote:

and please don't ask me to why. just to mention some very basic thing where is the mock config files? and i can ask dozens of such questions (what is did previously and i'm the only only one who send detail description how to rebuild rhel-6...

A mock config for C5 building was posted, to the Centos-devel list, the appropriate place for such.

Here's a link to an archive copy: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2007-August/001910.html

Read through that thread again....shouldn't take too long, since there's only two messages. Note the date, and note the posters.

For building a 5.6 of your own this should help, along with the el5 buildsys RPM (which only contains requires for the basic buildsys) that's already been posted about.

For building a 6 of your own, the Fedora process, while tuned to a much larger project, uses koji and all that entails, is available and completely open (to the best of my knowledge). The Mass Rebuild scripts live at http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=releng

Note that a full koji is fully required by those scripts, but there they are. Far more than just a simple mock config.....but that's because of the size of the project, and the fact that it has a distributed build system.

There is plenty of documentation on how to do a Fedora rebuild yourself on the Fedora project wiki. And, not to beat a dead horse, but EL6 is based off F12, and thus, once you have comps and a few things, in theory the Fedora infrastructure, loaded with all the buildrequires (a larger package set than the distributed SRPMS) for EL6, would churn out EL6 builds and composes.

Now, I mentioned the build requires. Poking around in my local copy of the 6rolling tree of SL, I find that there are packages required to build SL6 that are not part of SL6, and live in a separate directory ( ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/build/ to be specific).

I don't see the mock config or build scripts, however; perhaps I'm not looking in the right place.....

Great article to enlighten us all on why this round seems to be taking longer then the previous versions. And why in general this is a tremendous undertaking.

http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7952/

You'll need to log in to read the entire article but its worth it.

- aurf

Hallo Dag,

CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0

en ?

This is not a problem for me. I am contented to wait - en jij?

Hoi Dag,

This was in a direct response to Johnny ;-) No worries, I put the context back so it's clear *why* I replied this. It's not that I am impatient for CentOS 6.0. In fact I switched to RHEL6.

Regardless, I do think CentOS 5.6 is much more important than CentOS 6.0. As there is a direct security impact to users.

I was concerned about, and very keen to avoid, any pressures being put on the Centos team. They are doing their best for the benefit of probably many millions of grateful and dedicated Centos users around the world.

I admire very much what you and the others have done to provide builds and a very large repository for the benefit of millions - not only of Centos users. The public spirited nature of your (plural, d.w.z. jullie) endeavours, including the Centos team, is awesome and inspiring. It is amazing the good a few dedicated individuals can do for the remainder of humanity - hopefully it encourage others to work a little 'Pro Bono Publico' in their chosen expertise.

With best regards,

Paul. England, EU.

On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 18:20 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Always Learning centos@g7.u22.net wrote:

...

I admire very much what you and the others have done to provide builds and a very large repository for the benefit of millions - not only of Centos users. The public spirited nature of your (plural, d.w.z. jullie) endeavours, including the Centos team, is awesome and inspiring. It is amazing the good a few dedicated individuals can do for the remainder of humanity - hopefully it encourage others to work a little 'Pro Bono Publico' in their chosen expertise.

Would you mind adding ELRepo ( http://elrepo.org ) to that list? :-P

Yes of course and everyone else. I actually have a web page singing the praises of Elrepo from where I got my laptop's very difficult to find wifi driver.

With best regards,

Paul. England, EU.

Timothy Murphy wrote:

Dag Wieers wrote:

...

Regardless, I do think CentOS 5.6 is much more important than CentOS 6.0. As there is a direct security impact to users.

Could you explain that more fully, please? I've actually been puzzled why the developers are bothering with 5.6, if 6.0 very shortly.

Very simple - we have existing machines running 5.5 and no recent patches. CentOS 6 is for new builds - they can always wait - need to support working infrastructure first!

On 02/20/2011 07:30 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:

...

On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:

...

Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have:

For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after RHEL6.

The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their "Build Roots" in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM).

CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0

Source: wikipedia

Granted, RHEL6 is larger than RHEL5 which was larger than RHEL4, still...

PS And this time I am not off-by-1 (month) ;-)

It is not done, I don't know when it will be done. All the jumping up and down and screaming is not going to get it done any sooner.

On the initial pass through builder for C4, maybe 30 packages needed to be fixed because the links were bad.

On the initial pass through builder for c5, maybe 20 packages needed to be fixed.

On the initial pass through builder for c6, there are hundreds of packages that need to be analyzed.

Try this Dag. Take the SL rolling distro RPMS and the RHEL6 RPMS and run tmverifyrpms against it.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 02/20/2011 07:30 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:

...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:

...

On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:

...

Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have:

For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after RHEL6.

The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their "Build Roots" in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM).

CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0

Source: wikipedia

Granted, RHEL6 is larger than RHEL5 which was larger than RHEL4, still...

PS And this time I am not off-by-1 (month) ;-)

It is not done, I don't know when it will be done. All the jumping up and down and screaming is not going to get it done any sooner.

I am not sure where you got that information, but I wasn't jumping up and down and screaming ;-)

On the initial pass through builder for C4, maybe 30 packages needed to be fixed because the links were bad.

On the initial pass through builder for c5, maybe 20 packages needed to be fixed.

On the initial pass through builder for c6, there are hundreds of packages that need to be analyzed.

So you are now saying that you cannot scale out this work to more people to release faster ? This is something that has to be done by Karanbir only ?

On 02/21/2011 03:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

...

...

On the initial pass through builder for c6, there are hundreds of packages that need to be analyzed.

Johnny said something...

...

So you are now saying that you cannot scale out this work to more people to release faster ? This is something that has to be done by Karanbir only ?

Dag turns it around into something else completely.

Unless we're willing to re-invent the particular wheel being used for CentOS 6, apparently yes. By the time I'm done rebuilding that in *my*

Nico add some more, maybe relevant, juice.

So let me clear this up a bit - there are a few hundred packages still needing attention, its possible there is something fundamental that is broken - and I am seriously hoping that the work that dozens of people have done already and continue to do so ( look at the patch / reporters list on bugs.c.o ) against CentOS-6 isnt overlooked. Because they are not visible, does not automatically make them irrelevant. If we do hit a situation wherein thousands of lines of code need to be reviewed, trust me - its not going to be me doing it. Its going to *need* to be atleast a few dozen people.

I, for one, am quite grateful to the many people who did actually take up the call for help and do something about it.

on the other hand, I'm not getting involved in this thread beyond this post, its mostly irrelevant to anything that is going on at the moment.

- KB

On 2/21/11 10:35 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

So you are now saying that you cannot scale out this work to more people to release faster ? This is something that has to be done by Karanbir only ?

Dag,

The packages have to be built in a specific order, preferably the order that they are originally produced in, so that they can be linked properly. Package A builds, then Package B, then Package C. If package B is broken, it needs to be fixed, then Package C needs to be built, etc.

This is not something that can be done by several people at the same time in parallel, no. Not and be done correctly.

Couldn't the process be wrapped into a matrix build in Hudson (or now Jenkins) across a large farm of build slaves with a list of successful builds falling out at the end? For at least the set of things that succeed in one of the common environments...

Seeing as how we are currently dealing with 2 trees in the QA directory for testing right now (4.9 and 5.6) ... 6.0 will be waiting until we get those out of QA.

So you are constrained by workspace? Or number of people involved? And you don't see that as a problem that could be corrected?

On 02/21/2011 11:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 02/21/2011 11:08 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:

...

On 2/21/11 10:35 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

...

So you are now saying that you cannot scale out this work to more people to release faster ? This is something that has to be done by Karanbir only ?

Dag,

The packages have to be built in a specific order, preferably the order that they are originally produced in, so that they can be linked properly. Package A builds, then Package B, then Package C. If package B is broken, it needs to be fixed, then Package C needs to be built, etc.

This is not something that can be done by several people at the same time in parallel, no. Not and be done correctly.

Couldn't the process be wrapped into a matrix build in Hudson (or now Jenkins) across a large farm of build slaves with a list of successful builds falling out at the end? For at least the set of things that succeed in one of the common environments...

...

Seeing as how we are currently dealing with 2 trees in the QA directory for testing right now (4.9 and 5.6) ... 6.0 will be waiting until we get those out of QA.

So you are constrained by workspace? Or number of people involved? And you don't see that as a problem that could be corrected?

This is the last post I am making to this thread ... and maybe to this list in general. During the build processes, here are the files that we have had to add (at various times) to get packages to build. I have no idea if this list is current (we first try to build without add anything and test it), then we add packages if the testing says we need to.

*EL4* dump: ncurses-devel

pidgin: python-devel

openoffice.org: ncurses-devel gdbm-devel python-devel doxygen readline-devel gmp gmp-devel

openoffice.org2: ncurses-devel gdbm-devel python-devel doxygen readline-devel gcc4-c++ gmp gmp-devel

bluez-utils: libusb-devel

fetchmail: flex libacl-devel kernel-devel libaio-devel

dbus: xorg-x11-devel audit-libs-devel libcap-devel

dhcpv6: openssl-devel krb5-devel

ImageMagick: xorg-x11-devel libxml2-devel

usermode: intltool

rpm: neon-devel gettext-devel ncurses-devel libselinux-devel doxygen

ctags libtool cscope gcc-g77

gcc: glibc.i686 glibc-devel.i386

gimp: intltool

kdepim: flex

enscript: flex

device-mapper-multipath: libselinux-devel readline-devel

hal: perl-XML-Parser

im-sdk: openssl-devel krb5-devel

gnome-vfs2: intltool perl-XML-Parser

frysk:glib2-devel gcc-java atk-devel gamin-devel libxml2-devel perl-XML-Parser ghostscript-devel openssl-devel cups-devel

evolution-data-server: gnutls-devel

freetype: xorg-x11-devel

cups: libtiff-devel libjpeg-devel libpng-devel

gtk+: gettext-devel

netpbm: flex

grub: glibc.i686 glibc-devel.i386

openmpi: flex gcc4-gfortran

mpitests: lam-devel mvapich mvapich2 openmpi11 and openmpi-devel gcc4

boost: python-devel

net-snmp: rpm-devel

NetworkManager: libgcrypt-devel libgpg-error-devel

OpenIPMI: readline-devel

util-linux: e2fsprogs-devel

xscreensaver: libjpeg-devel xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU

xterm: libtermcap-devel utempter

linuxwacom: kernel-devel tcl kernel-smp kernel-smp-devel

squid: pkgconfig

vte: gcc-g77 gtk-doc libtool

zsh: ncurses-devel

dia: automake17

planner: python-devel

apr: gcc-g77 lksctp-tools-devel

gzip: texinfo

system-config-packages: intltool

perl: libgcj-devel gcc-g77

pcre: pcre-devel

ruby: db4-devel

gcc4: glibc-devel.i386

kbd: flex

lm_sensors: flex

ibmasm-xinput: xorg-x11-devel

sblim: sysfsutils-devel

coreutils: libacl-devel

evolution28-gtk2: gettext-devel glib2-devel

gstreamer-plugins:libgcrypt-devel gcc-g77 gtk2-devel pango-devel xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU libstdc++-devel

evolution28: perl-XML-Parser scrollkeeper

am-utils: flex

nfs-utils: tcp_wrappers

samba: libcap-devel

xcin: xorg-x11-devel

radvd: flex

isdn4k-utils: flex byacc

gd: xorg-x11-devel

libIDL: flex

libgnomecups: intltool

cryptsetup: libselinux-devel

tftp: libtermcap-devel readline-devel

vnc: xorg-x11-devel flex patchutils

openmpi11: sysfsutils-devel

gnome-volume-manager: perl-XML-Parser

rhn-applet: intltool

thunderbird: ORBit2-devel libart_lgpl-devel libbonobo-devel libbonoboui-devel GConf2-devel libgnome-devel libgnomecanvas-devel libgnomeui-devel gnome-vfs2-devel libxml2-devel

seamonkey: ORBit2-devel libart_lgpl-devel libbonobo-devel libbonoboui-devel GConf2-devel libgnome-devel libgnomecanvas-devel libgnomeui-devel gnome-vfs2-devel libxml2-devel

firefox: ORBit2-devel libart_lgpl-devel libbonobo-devel libbonoboui-devel GConf2-devel libgnome-devel libgnomecanvas-devel libgnomeui-devel gnome-vfs2-devel libxml2-devel

=====================================================================================

*EL5:* libibcm:libibverbs-devel libsysfs-devel

librdmacm:libibverbs-devel libsysfs-devel

libibverbs:valgrind-devel

libipathverbs:valgrind-devel

libmlx4:valgrind-devel

libmthca:valgrind-devel

openmpi:valgrind-devel

cman:libxml-devel

tzdata:java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel

=======================================================================================

As I said before, this is not necessarily a current list, it is more of a starting point if something fails a "link check".

On 2/21/2011 1:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Johnny Hughesjohnny@centos.org wrote:

...

This is the last post I am making to this thread ... and maybe to this list in general. During the build processes, here are the files that we have had to add (at various times) to get packages to build. I have no idea if this list is current (we first try to build without add anything and test it), then we add packages if the testing says we need to.

Thanks for the information. Could you drop it in the Wiki? And drop your notes on this process for CentOS 6 pre-building there, too?

...

*EL4* dump: ncurses-devel

pidgin: python-devel

[ etc. ] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

if it's a wiki how about you drop the information in Nico?

Far be it from me to take credit for someone else's work. I also don't have the CentOS 6 information, which is what I've really been wanting all along.....

There is no C6 info yet. Maybe he will release it once it's all worked out. After all this I wouldn't blame him if he didn't.

How hard is that to understand? 6.0 is barely being worked on right now at all due to 5.6

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

This is the last post I am making to this thread ... and maybe to this list in general.  During the build processes, here are the files that we have had to add (at various times) to get packages to build.  I have no idea if this list is current (we first try to build without add anything and test it), then we add packages if the testing says we need to.

A California saying is that "you are only as good as your last load.".

That was a VERY GOOD LOAD, Johnny. The community thanks you.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Corey Quinn corey@sequestered.net wrote:

The metaphor is "Only as good as your last game."

What part of California are YOU from? :-)

An OKie by birth, this CentOS community member of lowest possible rank lived at least five years each in West Germany and SoCal :)

Can we *please* kill this thread,

Yeah, yeah, yeah, please!

Kai

Ian Murray wrote:

...

From: "m.roth@5-cent.us" m.roth@5-cent.us

Can we *please* kill this thread, which has run on *far* too long, till at least next month (that is, if one of the above isn't out yet)?

So we resume on Tuesday?!?

I vote for kill because I got the last word in!

Pardon my phrasing - what I *intended* was "a month from now", not "00:01 1 March".

mark

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

SHUT UP

Where are you, Evolution? CentOS needs you once again. You can come out now from your hiding place [1].

Akemi

[1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-February/033406.html

On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:25:45 am Brunner, Brian T. wrote:

We strive to present to the world a BUG-FOR-BUG-IDENTICAL distribution of the corresponding RHEL release.

That's pretty well covered by the line on that page saying: "Under normal circumstances CentOS will NOT add patches to original upstream source packages."

On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

The packages have to be built in a specific order, preferably the order that they are originally produced in, so that they can be linked properly. Package A builds, then Package B, then Package C. If package B is broken, it needs to be fixed, then Package C needs to be built, etc.

What's the order for CentOS 6? This is published nowhere: all I can find is http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/buildsystem/, which seems targeted for CentOS 5.

Just like it is published nowhere for RHEL 6. We don't know the answer ... we have to figure it out. Normally, initially we start out trying to build it in chronological order from the upstream build date (which you can see from the RPM info) ... as that is the order that the packages were initially produced in.

Then we check the build via the tmverifyrpms and then we repeat as required.

...

This is not something that can be done by several people at the same time in parallel, no. Not and be done correctly.

Sure it can!!! That's what source control is for!!!! The local branches with personal tweaks are kept local, and require an occasional pull (or merge) from the upstream canonical repository.

We are not changing the sources at all ... we do not change the sources. The sources are pristine (except for the trademark changes).

The smaller changes, such as wrappers to address missing dependencies or tweaks to deal with

Can't change the SRPM ... it needs to stay the same.

...

This is very complex to bootstrap an OS from the beginning when upstream does not provide all the build requirements in one repo.

I am not sure what you want ... mabye you should try building it yourself and see how easy or hard it is.

I've got a CentOS 5 build environment up and running, from a ways back. But you say I need RHEL 5.90 beta or Fedora 12 to work from from to build RHEL 6 SRPMS? That will take some setup, and it's documented nowhere.

Because, we have not gotten it to build yet, it is in progress. We do not KNOW the correct answer.

...

Seeing as how we are currently dealing with 2 trees in the QA directory for testing right now (4.9 and 5.6) ... 6.0 will be waiting until we get those out of QA.

Les Mikesell wrote:

On 2/15/2011 9:56 AM, R - elists wrote:

...

the "we" that we speak of is "our" organization, *not* of or for CentOS and it's assigns

"its assigns" - it is not "it is assigns".

...

we believe that CentOS could do more and that (humble opinion) the CentOS team should be financially compensated fairly for their efforts

on all

...

of our behalf...

How would they be different from Oracle if they did that as a business?

Lessee, there's no one on the team who's a billionaire, or has their own fighter jet, and they're a HUGE amount more responsive than Oracle's tech support....

mark "I told y'all about my 'fun' with Oracle's support for Sun...."

2011/2/15 R - elists lists07@abbacomm.net:

...

I never ask, and never complain, since I don't feel this totally free product owes me anything... As a matter of fact, we owe the project...

Scott,

yes, we all owe the CentOS project in some way...

thing is, IDFR if we have ever been fully updated on the Open Letter problem(s) with the project...

im all for seeing the CentOS team get paychecks etc...

yet, a cash donations portal has not been an available option for a long looonnnngggggg time...

professionally, we desire to see a small fee subscription model for support of all the people/project overhead...

subscription model, no. donations, yes.

-- Eero

2011/2/15 John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com:

On 02/14/11 11:05 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:

...

subscription model, no. donations, yes.

as a small cog in a fairly large multinational company, I can say its a lot easier to get approval for a 'subscription' or 'service' than it is to donate money.

yes, it is easier to buy redhat subscription :)

-- Eero

Eero,

that is great, as long as you consider and actually donate to CentOS regularly

statistically, most people that download or use CentOS, do not donate.

- rh

On 02/15/2011 07:59 AM, R - elists wrote:

Eero,

that is great, as long as you consider and actually donate to CentOS regularly

statistically, most people that download or use CentOS, do not donate.

That, statistically speaking, could be influenced by the fact the monetary donation page has been 'down' for around one and a half years (ever since the centos 'ownership fight'). I can personally vouch for the fact my company was looking to donate money - only to be stonewalled by the lack of a way to do actually do so.

Money has these great virtues: It can be accumulated in small increments from people who can't afford large increments. It can be exchanged for physical objects like servers. And it can be used to pay (even if only on a part time basis) people to do specific jobs.

I highly recommend it. ;)

David Hornford wrote:

On 11-02-15 9:39 AM, "Jerry Franz" jfranz@freerun.com wrote:

...

On 02/15/2011 07:59 AM, R - elists wrote:

...

that is great, as long as you consider and actually donate to CentOS regularly

statistically, most people that download or use CentOS, do not donate.

That, statistically speaking, could be influenced by the fact the monetary donation page has been 'down' for around one and a half years (ever since the centos 'ownership fight'). I can personally vouch for the fact my company was looking to donate money - only to be stonewalled by the lack of a way to do actually do so.

Money has these great virtues: It can be accumulated in small increments from people who can't afford large increments. It can be exchanged for physical objects like servers. And it can be used to pay (even if only on a part time basis) people to do specific jobs.

I highly recommend it. ;)

Can also pay for beer, or beer equivalent :-)

<snip> Ah, *finally*, I see the light at the end of the tunnel, for 5.6 and 6: the correct question is, when they come out, who do I buy a bheer for?

mark "carrots, not sticks"

On 02/15/2011 09:59 AM, R - elists wrote:

Eero,

that is great, as long as you consider and actually donate to CentOS regularly

statistically, most people that download or use CentOS, do not donate.

Money is not the real issue. It is time, and more importantly trust.

We can not just give out the ability to compile and sign packages that go into a main CentOS distribution to every Tom, Dick or Harry who might know a thing or two about compiling packages.

The fact of the matter is, building the entire distribution and making sure everything is linked against the correct libraries and that it matches up with upstream is something that takes almost as long to check as it does to do correctly ... so throwing more bodies at it does not really help that much. The order the packages are built in is important ... and now with several versions of different packages (like samba and samba3, postgresql and postgresql84, etc.) in the same tree, it becomes even that much harder to get this right.

Then there is the control of the keys that sign the packages and access to the infrastructure one would need in order to push packages, etc. We must vet the people who we would give this kind of access to. We have to know them and trust them before they can have that kind of access.

As I said before, Oracle has not had their stuff released for very long and while Scientific Linus has released some Alpha/Beta stuff along the way, they also have not released 5.6 or 6.0 either. This is not easy. It takes time.

We will get both of these out as soon as we can. Trust me, we would rather they were released than not.

On Feb 15, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Garry Dale wrote:

Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Money is not the real issue. It is time, and more importantly trust.

We can not just give out the ability to compile and sign packages that go into a main CentOS distribution to every Tom, Dick or Harry who might know a thing or two about compiling packages.

Once again, Harry & Dick take a beating, not to mention poor Tom.

Frustrating...

I think the attitude about this stems from a more symptomatic problem of ppl being a lot more impatient now then before.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the ppl complaining are 30 and under.

On a more broader note, IT is almost grouped with the power switch, were ppl completely freak when its not available.

Man, I was a hero back in the day, now, same complexity of work, same issues, but a lot less gratitude so I pat myself on the back.

My generation (40ish) helped create this almost 24x7 infrastructure and now look were its got us :)

- aurf

On 02/15/2011 07:06 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

As I said before, Oracle has not had their stuff released for very long and while Scientific Linus has released some Alpha/Beta stuff along the way, they also have not released 5.6 or 6.0 either. This is not easy. It takes time.

Just for the sake of completeness, I've heard people mention that SL6 has had Red Hat binaries for the longest time. Not sure if they have all those removed as yet or not.

- KB

On 02/16/2011 09:20 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

As I said before, Oracle has not had their stuff released for very long and while Scientific Linus has released some Alpha/Beta stuff along the way, they also have not released 5.6 or 6.0 either. This is not easy. It takes time.

Johnny,

A minor correction; Oracle released late last month and SL released even earlier per the first trouble report at http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=8&sessionId=1&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=106641, namely:

• 5.6 release history: – RedHat released RHEL 5.6 on 13-Jan – CERN released SLC 5.6 on 20-Jan – FNAL released SL 5.6 last week

We've been running SL 5.6 for quite some time (ONLY ON CERTAIN BOXEN while waiting on CentOS).

To the best of my knowledge, you are running BETA's or ALPHA's and not "released" 5.6 products for SL 5.6 ...

http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions

Or maybe I am missing something?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:

Apparently there was some confusion around the release of SL 5.6 alpha. Troy Dawson cleared it up in his post to the main SL mailing list:

http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1102&L=scientific-linux-us...

I am not confused; as a former summer employee at ORINS and ORNL when in college 4 decades ago, what's good enough for the national labs is good enough for me _now_. See http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/SL/ for the gory details of changes since Jan 14.

Back in the Sputnik days, one had to leaf through meters of Nuclear Science Abstracts to find applicable gems; these days, Troy announces on distrowatch.

I think Troy's (ANL) and Matthias' (CERN) approach is VERY GOOD, having released preliminary alpha/beta/gamma code a week after RedHat and we have benefited from that with the only inconvenience being that the install process starts with boot.iso and required mirroring the SL repository in order to avoid load on ANL, which is probably unnecessary given they are on Internet2.

IMHO, "Complete and correct" doesn't exist in the sw world (vs. hardware) and Troy's and Matthias' approach is very reasonable and timely.

Which leads me to another favorite point: has anyone calculated the average age of RHEL at release time?

kind regards/ldv

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

WRT the age of RHEL ... that is what enterprise Linux is.  Fedora (or Ubuntu non LTS, or opensuse, or Debian SID, or any number of other alternatives) exist if you don't want the more stable (ie, older) items.

Again, nothing wrong with their approach (I like Troy in any dealings we have had), however it is not what CentOS does or is going to do.  When we release, we basically loose meaningful access to our machines for a week as dozens of internal servers, hundreds of external mirrors, and millions of individual machines get updated.

1) With industry experts saying things like

"It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at Dr. Vaughn's place of employment."

I think I'll continue with the effort to get RedHat to see the wisdom wrt certain essential elements of the Internet infrastructure (like BIND).

2) Further, I think I'll continue with RedHat/CentOS/SL because I have the layout of the file system memorized, if for no other reason. Too much time on "where did they put that?" in Ubuntu/Debian/et al. Yeah, I should probably stress the 64 year old neurons with memorizing the Ubuntu file structure, but then I wouldn't have time to post remarks like these, including prodding the CentOS team to follow Browning and "grasp beyond their reach." :)

kind regards/ldv

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:

On 2/16/2011 11:17 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:

...

I think I'll continue with the effort to get RedHat to see the wisdom wrt certain essential elements of the Internet infrastructure (like BIND).

I thought the RHEL 5.6 release notes said it contains BIND 9.7.  What more do you want?

A good definition of "current" is "Belonging to the present time."

bind-9.7.3 came out 02/14, but the prior release was 9.7.2-P3 from last year and RHEL 5.6 carries

Version : 9.3.6 Release : 16.P1.el5 Version : 9.7.0 Release : 6.P2.el5

both of which were released by Paul Vixie and crew at isc.org before recently formed rocks.

N.B. pkgs.org is showing that CentALT is at current code and Fedora is using a release candidate!

Centos.alt.ru CentALT RPM Repository has released the following this year alone:

bind-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-chroot-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-devel-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-libs-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-pkcs11-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-sdb-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm bind-utils-9.7.3-1.el5.i386.rpm clamav-0.97-1.el5.i386.rpm clamav-db-0.97-1.el5.i386.rpm clamav-devel-0.97-1.el5.i386.rpm clamav-milter-0.97-1.el5.i386.rpm clamav-server-0.97-1.el5.i386.rpm ipfw3-20101110-1.el5.i386.rpm ipt_account-0.1.21-1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-devel-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-headers-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i386.rpm kernel-PAE-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-PAE-devel-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-xen-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kernel-xen-devel-2.6.18-238.1.1.1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-account-0.1.21-1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-account-PAE-0.1.21-1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-account-xen-0.1.21-1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-ipfw3-20101110-1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-ipfw3-PAE-20101110-1.el5.i686.rpm kmod-ipfw3-xen-20101110-1.el5.i686.rpm l7-filter-userspace-0.11-2.el5.i386.rpm ldns-1.6.8-1.el5.i386.rpm ldns-devel-1.6.8-1.el5.i386.rpm ldns-python-1.6.8-1.el5.i386.rpm mc-4.7.5.1-1.el5.i386.rpm nginx-0.9.4-1.el5.i386.rpm php-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-bcmath-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-cli-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-common-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-dba-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-devel-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-embedded-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-fpm-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-gd-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-imap-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-ldap-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-mbstring-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-mcrypt-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-mhash-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-mssql-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-mysql-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-ncurses-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-odbc-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-pdo-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-pgsql-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-process-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-pspell-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-recode-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-snmp-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-soap-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-tidy-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-xml-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-xmlrpc-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm php-zts-5.2.17-1.el5.i386.rpm postfix-2.7.2-2.el5.i386.rpm postfix-perl-scripts-2.7.2-2.el5.i386.rpm proftpd-1.3.3d-2.el5.i386.rpm proftpd-ldap-1.3.3d-2.el5.i386.rpm proftpd-mysql-1.3.3d-2.el5.i386.rpm proftpd-postgresql-1.3.3d-2.el5.i386.rpm repodata/ unbound-1.4.8-1.el5.i386.rpm unbound-devel-1.4.8-1.el5.i386.rpm unbound-libs-1.4.8-1.el5.i386.rpm unbound-munin-1.4.8-1.el5.i386.rpm vnstat-1.10-2.el5.i386.rpm vsftpd-2.3.4-1.el5.i386.rpm

kind regards/ldv

On 2/16/2011 11:06 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

Again, nothing wrong with their approach (I like Troy in any dealings we have had), however it is not what CentOS does or is going to do. When we release, we basically loose meaningful access to our machines for a week as dozens of internal servers, hundreds of external mirrors, and millions of individual machines get updated.

I thought I saw offers of torrent seeders/bandwidth a while back - and I suspect there would be more if you wanted to release betas. On the other hand, it is somewhat evil to ship something without an infrastructure in place for updating the bugs that are almost certainly going to be included.

At Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:16:22 -0600 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:

...

Money is not the real issue. It is time, and more importantly trust.

Another minor correction: Karanbir has written on the list that he was delayed by an HDD failure, so money is an issue IMHO.

I believe the HDD failure was at his *day job*, not anything to do with CentOS itself. It sounded like Karanbir had to delay dealing with CentOS in order to deal with a work-related emergency.

As a rural ISP 2 miles east of the middle of nowhere with a budget so tight we pinch nickels until they $hit $s, when an HDD fails, we hot swap it out of the RAID array and move on, typically within 5 minutes. True, we have 4 GB drives that have been spinning since 1997 (hello to Chuck Dahlem, head designer at Seagate in OKC), but that's what life is like in rural America. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:

How is a HDD failure at $dayjob an issue of project-related        "money"?  Can you perhaps conflate more?

There's a lot of difference between writing

"Was hoping to have this done by the weekend but a series of unfortunate incidents ( like large scale hdd failures ) meant that things at the $dayjob got a bit hectic and this slipped a few days."

and writing

"Was hoping to have this done by the weekend but a series of unfortunate incidents ( like large scale hdd failures at the $dayjob) meant that things got a bit hectic and this slipped a few days."

so, as I read it, I had help with the conflation.

Further, I'm surprised to learn that Karanbir's employer would go against Karanbir's presumed advice against allowing such a situation to develop.

Even further, the resistance to properly funding this project is truly amazing.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:29:17PM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:

There's a lot of difference between writing

"Was hoping to have this done by the weekend but a series of unfortunate incidents ( like large scale hdd failures ) meant that things at the $dayjob got a bit hectic and this slipped a few days."

and writing

"Was hoping to have this done by the weekend but a series of unfortunate incidents ( like large scale hdd failures at the $dayjob) meant that things got a bit hectic and this slipped a few days."

No, the difference is actually quite small unless you're looking for material to argue over.

so, as I read it, I had help with the conflation.

No, no help at all.

Further, I'm surprised to learn that Karanbir's employer would go against Karanbir's presumed advice against allowing such a situation to develop.

100% irrelevant to CentOS or this thread.

Even further, the resistance to properly funding this project is truly amazing.

The project itself doesn't seem to have an issue with funding, at least no issues I can spot in any public venue, so why do *you*, an outsider and apparently non-contributor, have such an issue? I don't get it. You seem to think that money is the end all be all for OSS. I would suggest that's a mindset you may wish to change as money doesn't drive OSS.

John

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 03:54:20PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:

And yet, fairly often in these conversations, paying for an RHEL support subscription is suggested as a solution.

Yep. And I'm the very first to point out that if you're going to whine, cry, bitch and complain, go do it to someone paid to listen to you. Part of the cost of the support entitlement at Redhat goes to paying people to man phones and sales reps to deal with such. After all, Redhat is a publicly traded company, they would love to have your business _and_ you'd actually be supporting CentOS' upstream provider in the process.

But the concept of throwing money at CentOS, a *volunteer* project, in the deluded and mistaken belief that it will fix all the wrongs in the world is just ludicrous. With money comes overhead, management, accountability, multi-national taxation, ad nauseum. Oh, and the fact that it doesn't solve what people perceive as "issues".

John

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:

Am 16.02.2011 um 22:29 schrieb Larry Vaden:

...

Even further, the resistance to properly funding this project is truly amazing.

Well, with money come a lot of strings attached.

Ja und nein.

Most likely, one would either have to incorporate a business or found some not-for-profit entity if large amounts of money flowed in.

Gifts from major corps like HP, IBM, Sun/Oracle, yada 1, yada 2 don't require said.

So, I think it's a bit naive to believe that more money would make the project "better" or make releases appear faster on the mirrors.

I think it a trit (0, 1, "I don't know) naive to think that money/donations wouldn't help. These guys said they loose access to their servers when the rollout starts.

Hopefully, the people actually involved in the release-effort don't get too distracted by this "noise".

There's no truth to the rumor that K & J are the ghost writers behind "Kill Files For Dummies" but you can Google it.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:36 PM, John R. Dennison jrd@gerdesas.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:24:05PM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de wrote:

I think it a trit (0, 1, "I don't know) naive to think that money/donations wouldn't help.  These guys said they loose access to their servers when the rollout starts.

Jesus.  Conflate more.  Or even better, _learn to read_ or        perhaps learn something about infrastructure.

...

There's no truth to the rumor that K & J are the ghost writers behind "Kill Files For Dummies" but you can Google it.

I would have procmail'd you into oblivion quite some time ago        except you continue to spread nonsense in this list and someone        needs to point it out.

Which word or word phrase in "who's in charge of asking the major manufacturers to loan a top shelf server to the project?" is nonsense?

On Wed, February 16, 2011 17:08, Rainer Duffner wrote:

Am 16.02.2011 um 22:29 schrieb Larry Vaden:

...

Even further, the resistance to properly funding this project is truly amazing.

Well, with money come a lot of strings attached.

Most likely, one would either have to incorporate a business or found some not-for-profit entity if large amounts of money flowed in.

This is an absolute requirement for us to contribute funds to CentOS.

I put myself in an extremely embarrassing position by donating company funds to CentOS without previously determining that a legally independent entity was receiving them. When the controversy over the CentOS financial arrangements became public and it was revealed that the monies were flowing to an individual I found myself in an extremely awkward situation. I am not going to repeat that experience.

We use CentOS extensively and I am very happy to contribute my own time and resources where I can. But, our future financial support for CentOS is contingent upon dealing with an independent legal entity that conforms with national and international tax laws and corporate reporting requirements.

2011/2/20 Sean soso@orcon.net.nz

James B. Byrne wrote:

...

But, our future financial support for CentOS is contingent upon dealing with an independent legal entity that conforms with national and international tax laws and corporate reporting requirements.

A new model (appropriate to OSS) is being worked on here: http://flattr.com/ But, apart from being slightly experimental, may not be appropriate either to your particular dilemma?

in (my) ideal world. money are not necessary. you give me centos, i give you electricity, or hardware, or an office, etc . since we still live in money-lenders ruled world, is there a way to contribute (money) to centos but not directly? like, instead giving money, pay the bill(s).

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

On 02/14/2011 09:00 PM, robert mena wrote:

...

Hi,

Despite the mailing list and twitter I did not find any updated info on either versions regarding the current status.

I just finished pushing through the 5.6 distro tree's into the distro builders ( so isos get built etc and moved to qa ). Was hoping to have this done by the weekend but a series of unfortunate incidents ( like large scale hdd failures ) meant that things at the $dayjob got a bit hectic and this slipped a few days.

Ok, shouldn't there be at least 1 more person that can do and access whatever you can? God forbid, but what if you get sick again or hit by a lorry, struck by lightning etc? Who can take over in such situations?

I'm not moaning about the delay (if there even is such a thing), but it looks to me like the project needs some redundancy in the "human" dept.

Cheers

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

On 02/15/2011 06:01 AM, Lucian wrote:

...

Ok, shouldn't there be at least 1 more person that can do and access whatever you can?

yes, there is and they can.

Happy to hear that! The next question comes automatically: why don't they do it since you're so busy at the $dayjob?