On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 17:54 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

...

Any idea on timing of 4U2?

The end of the beta period for el4u2 is tomorrow. The upstream provider usually releases their official product 1-4 weeks after the end of that period.

We usually release our first arch (i386) with a week of the upstream release and our other arches within a week after the first arch release.

2-5 weeks. Ok. I'll try the prelim RHEL kernel first; should be pretty close. Many thanks!

Pasi Pirhonen wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 05:52:15PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

We usually release our first arch (i386) with a week of the upstream release and our other arches within a week after the first arch release.

I find it a bit offensive when it's brough out as it is above. It really should be 'we have a policy of releasing i386 first even when anything else would be ready before'.

Well, I appreciate the efforts of Johnny H. and if it takes a week or two, regardless of ARCH, so be it. He's doing a lot. What happens if he needs an extended vacation? He *is* CentOS, you know (that's not sarcasm).

Pasi Pirhonen wrote:

I ment more like that most times ia64, s390, s390x has been ready before i386, but not released due the fack that 'it might confuse users

Hi Pasi,

Working together, we can basically ensure that the i386/x86_64/ia64 are all done and released together for 4.2. There should be no problems with that. The other slower ARCH's can come when they are ready.

If in the event that i386 is ready first, I will make sure that its held back till x86_64 and IA64 catch up. Based on how we have been working, I cant imagine anyone having to really wait for much time.

Ideal situation would be to have all ARCH's release together, but we dont have either the infrastructure or the people required to achieve that.

btw, you think we will see a s390(x) for 4.2 ?

- K -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 12:07 +0300, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Working together, we can basically ensure that the i386/x86_64/ia64 are all done and released together for 4.2. There should be no problems with that. The other slower ARCH's can come when they are ready.

That's the plan. Bad wording from Johnny, but i took it as written, so .....

...

Ideal situation would be to have all ARCH's release together, but we dont have either the infrastructure or the people required to achieve that.

btw, you think we will see a s390(x) for 4.2 ?

s390(x) can't hold the release. We/I have always agreed that. making usage of emulator will take some time (gcc alone tales some 40-50 hours to compile, so ...) and the s390(x) is released when ready.

I don't see no reason not making 4.2 of s390(x) as we did release both s390 and s390x as 4.1 already :)

To end this now: I do agree that most of the user space is i386 (sadly even x86-64 can't come even near of the user space of i386). That doesn't still mean that it's something exclusive. I myself find i386 boring and don't even do any development on that area. x86-64 is so so, but i is quite boring now after some two years of supported distributions (back November 2003 it was quite interesting and did have some real hacking value in it).

Basically this all started from bad wording which made me feel like saying few words about the rest of the stuff just laying there for users that might value it over i386 any day.

But lets not fight about this. It's not worth it :)

Pasi ... what I meant was, since i386 is the vast majority of our user space, we will work on that with the highest priority (at least for 4.2 ... I don't control 3.x). I know that you also always have ia-64 done on or before that time too (and I / we appreciate all your hard work to maintain 7 arches :)

Ideally, we will release i386 and whatever else we have ready at the same time (on the first release) and release everything else later (usually within a week).

If there are problems with packages in i386, but they build on other arches, so that i386 will have to be delayed, but the others can be released, then we can release other arches before i386.

I think we can work it so that I am doing i386, you are doing ia-64 (and your other distros) and Karanbir is doing x86_64 at the same time, so the 3 major arches should be done about the same time this release cycle.

It is not worth fighting over, and it is not meant to slight anyone else, just to release the arch with the large majority of users first so there is less confusion .... but, seriously, if we have your arch(es) done and it looks like it will be more than a day with i386, then we will release your arch(es) first (at least on 4.x).

Ed Clarke wrote:

The ppc64 arch is likely to become much more important once the Sony-Toshiba-IBM processor gets into consumer hands. The new Sony playstation is supposed to use it

We will have a ppc64 installer out in time with CentOS 4.2. We already have a ppc distro tree[1] that installs and runs fine on Apple Mac / IBM 32bit Power Machines.

[1] presently in beta stage, since we are building this to work with and continue to work with ppc32 hardware ( which RHEL does not do ).

- K

I would look in to thin clients. Like the K12 project ( http://k12ltsp.org/contents.html ) You can use them there and give Open source learning to the young minds. Karl

Chris Mauritz wrote:

Karanbir Singh wrote:

...

Ed Clarke wrote:

...

The ppc64 arch is likely to become much more important once the Sony-Toshiba-IBM processor gets into consumer hands. The new Sony playstation is supposed to use it

We will have a ppc64 installer out in time with CentOS 4.2. We already have a ppc distro tree[1] that installs and runs fine on Apple Mac / IBM 32bit Power Machines.

[1] presently in beta stage, since we are building this to work with and continue to work with ppc32 hardware ( which RHEL does not do ).

The 32bit PPC release is for the older G3/G4 macs, no? I've got a pile of unused G4 400-800mhz powermacs just sitting around that I'd love to get some use out of, but I don't think they'd be very responsive with OSX tiger. My children's school has a lab full of Macs so I'm wondering if I donated the machines, installed CentOS and then volunteered some time each week to train someone how to maintain them, that might be better than having them collect dust at the office.

As for PPC64, has anyone done benchmarking between a ppc64 and OSX system on the same G5 hardware?

Cheers,

---

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

Pasi Pirhonen wrote:

But then again, i really don't know if it's worth of it when there are clueless people screaming 'Johnny *is* CentOS' at maling lists. Maybe just ignore those ignorant people and carry on :)

Pasi, that was uncalled for.

This list truly is getting hostile. All I did was complement Johnny on his hard work, and he clarified that it's not just him doing the work and he listed the names of those who should be credited for their efforts. My "Johnny *is* Centos" statement was in reference to a recent post by Johnny (Why is yum not liked by some) where Johnny says:

"I am the CentOS people :)"

Why are people on this list so uptight and ready to insult others at the drop of a hat?

Geez...

"Hilliard, Jay" Jay.Hilliard@disney.com wrote:

This list truly is getting hostile.

Just remember that it is _only_ a _minority_ of the list.

Why are people on this list so uptight and ready to insult others at the drop of a hat?

Again, it's select people. And half of the time, it's subconscience and unintentional.

It's hard to read body language and tone here. But sometimes you have to point out things (e.g., my _only_ prior complaint was that people were quoting only me when complaining about a thread).

Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:

He said that himself (almost), but strictly in the context of a question about managing the download/update repositories. I don't think its fair to take it out of that context.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind if people trash my name or the name of others, who are merely list members and occassionally post things into Bugzilla. We come and go and we have our own interests

But as far as those putting in the hours on this project, maintaining the facilities and infrastructure, etc..., cut them or the people who hold them up, some slack. Even if much of what we gain from CentOS is due to the work others would have to do anyway for their own needs, be glad they do it for all of us.

Because that's what open source is about. Respect the developers who scratch their itch, because without it, we'd all be lost.

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 22:47 -0700, Hilliard, Jay wrote:

<snip>

Well, I appreciate the efforts of Johnny H. and if it takes a week or two, regardless of ARCH, so be it. He's doing a lot. What happens if he needs an extended vacation? He *is* CentOS, you know (that's not sarcasm).

I appreciate the support ... BUT ... there are lots of people involved in CentOS-4 ...

I do the i386 and x86_64 for C4 (Karanbir helps a lot with those too) ... Karanbir (z00dax on IRC) does ppc for C4 ... Pasi (blahee on IRC) does ia-64, alpha, s390, s390x for both C3 and C4 ... and Pasi is starting working on sparc as well (and I am working on sparc too, Pasi's machines are better).

Of course there is CentOSPlus and kbs-centos-extras ... Jim Perrin (Evolution on IRC) is doing some stuff for us in CentOSPlus ... as is Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams (Ignacio on IRC).

We are a team, and we all do lots of work for CentOS-4 ... and it wouldn't be nearly as good if anyone on the team were less involved. I / we appreciate all the effort that everyone gives to make CentOS the best EL rebuild distro out there :)

I didn't mean to imply that any one arch is more important, just giving out goals for the releases, based on user space considerations :)

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 16:54 +0400, Security wrote:

Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 22:47 -0700, Hilliard, Jay wrote:

We are a team, and we all do lots of work for CentOS-4 ... and it wouldn't be nearly as good if anyone on the team were less involved. I / we appreciate all the effort that everyone gives to make CentOS the best EL rebuild distro out there :)

Juste a few second, there is other good EL clones/custom build :) But Centos made a really good job.

Just a question: how many hours Centos take to you per week ?? just to compare with the time Gralinux take to us.

Regards

jean-seb

Personally I spend 30-50 hours a week doing CentOS related stuff ... but not just building updates (that is only maybe 15% of the time).

I also maintain the mail lists, research and build items for centosplus and centosextras, maintain the mirrors database, manage all the CentOS servers (14 and counting), manage the website, answer questions on IRC and in the centos forums, etc.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 09:01:59AM +0400, Security wrote:

Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Personally I spend 30-50 hours a week doing CentOS related stuff ... but not just building updates (that is only maybe 15% of the time).

I also maintain the mail lists, research and build items for centosplus and centosextras, maintain the mirrors database, manage all the CentOS servers (14 and counting), manage the website, answer questions on IRC and in the centos forums, etc.

So .. for you it's a really full time job ? Damned .. 30 hours .. I take what .. 2 hours per day .. 10 hours per week. But i work on gralinux "at work" (and we use it for all linux servers we have) so it's easy to me to do some reseach/tests.

Anyway you and all your staff are making a really good job :)

I'd say that i spend some 30-50 hours too with CentOS-related stuff too. Updates being the easy part. It does have it's 'sane moment between U-releases', but for example it has been now several weeks of preparation of 4.2 (compiling and looking if it's sane).

So as Johnny said, the maitenance of security etc. fixes isn't that time consuming (for me it's wall clock time as s390(x) under hercules might take a lot of physical time). I do sometimes take and do funbuilds. Just put together latest of all SRPMS and build the damn thing with the latest compiler released - just to see if it still hold together. This i do for i386 and x86-64 too (i used to generate my own PXE-installable distros out of these too, but lately i haven't quite had time for that anymore :)

Later the hacking value and consumed time has kind of sky rocketed w/ the release alpha/axp which needs a lot more work than just rebuilding (starting from hacking CentOS-4 kernel working on that arch).

But i don't complain. This is actuallu path that i've chosen. I did very clearly understand that when i push out something like CentOS-4/axp, i am oblicated to support is 5-6 years. Being weird guy, i actually like the distribution building itself - took sevral years to realize it tho :)

The there is the 'mocking value' (which i was just yesterday critized about) at mailing lists and IRC. That is something not so intensive. I do more at IRC than at mailing lists tho.