[CentOS-devel] iptables-devel in centos 4.4

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Wed Aug 23 13:48:01 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 14:10 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >Milan Keršláger wrote:

> I still haven't understood what you mean by "Rules only for some
> people". As already stated: CentOS *tries* to stay as close as possible
> to the upstream release. It looks like that isn't always possible (as in
> this case, where the build chain from upstream hadn't been released).
> The only case I see where CentOS (base!) strays from upstream is the
> i586 kernel which can be used at installation time

And let me point out that the reason we did the i586 kernel were this:

1.  It does not CHANGE the i686 (or any other kernel) compiled with the
source code.  The i586 kernel is added for those who need it, it doesn't
affect users who don't use it at all. 

>  and the packaging of yum (as RHN isn't available).

And the reason we did this:

We had to modify RHN ... as we could not use it.  We had to provide some
other system for updates.  We choose yum and used that.

Making changes to the RH software to fix RH problems is another issue

Also, notice now that the beta channel is gone after the 4u4 release.
All those files do not exist at RH anymore.  The gcc they released
happened to be 3.4.6-3 ... but it could have been 3.4.6-4 or something
else in 4u4 (there was a different glibc, for example, than in the
beta). So, you would have us produce a kernel with an RPM that was never
officially released upstream ... one that might disappear when they
release the update set, that doesn't appear on any RH ftp server?

How could that be called responsible or professional?  If I did that, it
would be (IMHO) very unprofessional.

CentOS has rules, and we follow them.  We do not build anything on a
build tree that is not released.  

All updates are built on a centos build tree.

> > I was asking to build non-crashing kernel only. Instead of fix I've got
> > angry people trying to push me out. Really not funny end.
> It might have been the way you asked. Calling people "unprofessional"
> and mark their doings as "PLAIN WRONG" really doesn't help. Claiming
> that they don't know "what is giving back" and suggesting that they do
> not have a subscription while "using all that from REDHAT" doesn't help
> either. Please reread your statements (and *HOW* you put them) in that
> bug report. 

That didn't help, no.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20060823/aca3ec44/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list