[CentOS-devel] progress?

[Philippe Laurent]

I do appreciate everyone's efforts!

I have a few idle servers locally that can be used for compiling, but
unfortunately cannot make the servers accessible to the outside. If that
helps, I am willing to toss in CPU cycles.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:

> On 02/24/2011 10:59 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
> > 2011/2/23 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org
> > <mailto:mail-lists at karan.org>>
> >
> >     On 02/22/2011 08:26 PM, Thomas Bendler wrote:
> >     > And to make my point clear, I don't believe it is rocket science to
> >     > get such a release cycle established if _more_ skilled people are
> >     > involved in the release creation (beyond translation work).
> >     I do believe you dont know what you are talking about, have done no
> >     research or aware of the CentOS process. You seem to be going on and
> on
> >     about getting more eyes on the ball, which is exactly what we
> attempted
> >     to do last year, and the option is still open.
> >
> >
> > Funny to know that I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe you can
> > be more specific. As I already pointed out in another mail, for me it
> > look like that having more than one release at the same time (4.9, 5.6
> > and 6) result in a major slow down of release cycle time. This means for
> > me, the project isn't able to scale (correct me if I'm wrong). When the
> > project can't scale it is under normal circumstances a matter of human
> > resources or technical boundaries. As you told me already in December,
> > it is not a technical problem. So from my point of view it could _only_
> > be a matter of human resources in terms that not enough people working
> > on the release (again, correct me if I'm wrong). To offer my help I
> > asked already in December, please provide a list of packages that don't
> > compile so that people that are willing to help can help getting this
> > packages compiled (i.e. with differnet mock settings or whatever needed
> > to get this compiled). If the recompile isn't possible because the SRPM
> > is broken they can submit Bugreports to RH. But I only saw such a list
> > on the SL website
> > (https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/problembyrpm),
> > not on the CentOS website.
> >
> > What I heard in the meantime is that CentOS has a policy that the next
> > release must be compiled with CentOS what I think is a bit funny simply
> > because RedHat don't use a build environment based in RedHat (I read an
> > article in the press indicating that they use FC12 koji with some FC13,
> > FC14 backports, but I can't proof this). But the point is still, if you
> > and your team allow skilled people to support you in the release
> > creation (not by signing packages or so, but to work out open items,
> > problems, whatsoever) it is something that the CentOS project will
> > benefit, specially if you look at the mails currently on the list, most
> > mails are from the same type, when is CentOS X.X released and why isn't
> > it already released.
>
> Why isn't SL released yet ... why did Oracle only release it last week
> ... because it takes time and it is hard.
>
> If you want to use CentOS, feel free to use it.  If you don't, feel free
> to leave.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110224/5128f84b/attachment.html>