On 4/7/2011 8:47 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of David Sommerseth Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.
[Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:
Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...
They come up every time that the methodology and resources of the developers don't produce the results expected by the users. The fact that this has historically only happened around release times is coincidental. People are (correctly) fearful of putting blind faith in optimistic engineers who say everything will be fine without saying why they believe that or why they reject suggestions for changes that might be improvements.
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
Thanks, Mike
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
Answer 4: This is not just an answer of "yes it's a production release" it's "production releases are all that CentOS ever does."
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:36 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
Answer 4: This is not just an answer of "yes it's a production release" it's "production releases are all that CentOS ever does."
Appreciate the clarification. I had thought that like SL, there would have been a CentOS 6 beta. From my searches, it appears that I was mistaken, there is no --public-- (or private?) CentOS 6 beta.
Thanks, Mike
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:48 -0700, MJang wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:36 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
Answer 4: This is not just an answer of "yes it's a production release" it's "production releases are all that CentOS ever does."
Appreciate the clarification. I had thought that like SL, there would have been a CentOS 6 beta. From my searches, it appears that I was mistaken, there is no --public-- (or private?) CentOS 6 beta.
If I'm reading https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25878&forum=... correctly, there will be a CentOS 6 beta first,
though http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/6/AuditStatus suggests about 50 packages still at issue in the audit process.
So those audited packages must be cleared first before a CentOS 6 beta is released?
Thanks, Mike
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brunner, Brian T. BBrunner@gai-tronics.com wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.
Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me
It's already been said dozens of times by the developers that this change does not impact projects like CentOS that just repackage the Redhat source. It only affects companies who try to provide commercial support and need to know exactly what each kernel patch does separately.
// Brian Mathis
On 7.4.2011 17:23, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-bounces@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
I dont buy this argument.
CentOS is _rebuilding_ . Does not matter how the source is represented in my understanding.
Anyway, I found an article where Russ Herold is quoted about the matter
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell...
May I quote:
"We haven't at all restricted CentOS's ability to grab source code and recompile it and clean-out trademarks and package it. It's just some of the knowledge of the insides that we're hiding," he explains. One longtime CentOS developer agrees.
"I'll not lose sleep on the matter," CentOS co-founder Russ Herold tells The Reg.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war
The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war
The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)
Great song. At least all messages titled "Centos 6 Update?" Are easy to spot and delete. :)
Very true. Maybe it's time to go load some custom rules into MailScanner :)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of compdoc Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 1:18 PM To: 'CentOS mailing list' Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war
The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)
Great song. At least all messages titled "Centos 6 Update?" Are easy to spot and delete. :)
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/7/2011 10:23 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.
This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
This one shouldn't affect the stock CentOS kernel and the 6.x release shouldn't have to wait for the centosplus version.
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
Yes, if you can't build from the source and libs shipped, it is a problem... And from the meager info disclosed by the CentOS devs so far there's not much reason to be optimistic about how long it will take them to be able to reproduce the missing build environment tools/libs or if that will ever be possible. And there's no particular reason to expect this to get better going forward with security-related updates since RH apparently wants to put the alternatives at a disadvantage.
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus. See Johnny's March 8, 2011, post on planet.centos.org
Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
This is the, IMO, primary reason things have been slower this time around.
A close secondary is the subsequent 4.9 and 5.6 upstream releases. Those were assigned a higher priority, and those are done. 4.9 is out and has been for a while, and 5.6 is syncing now. 5.6 had its share of build env/repo/root 'things' apparently as well.
So 6.0 will be out when it's ready, and that's just the way it is. I'd rather have 4.9 and 5.6 out first, and I fully support the developers' decision to do it that way, since I do have C4 and C5 servers out there, but I don't yet have a C6 server running..... And if you want to be a really early adopter, SL picked the other route, and so there is an EL6 rebuild out there to work with. That's one good thing about having the two projects separate, at least in this instance.
-
Brian Mathis -
Brunner, Brian T. -
compdoc -
James N. Smith -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Markus Falb -
MJang