On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote: > On 02/20/2011 06:16 AM, js wrote: >> Le 20/02/11 04:32, Dag Wieers a écrit : >>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> >>>> For the vast majority of packages, we make no changes. We rebuild it >>>> and test it. If the binary passes the test, we use it. If the binary >>>> does not pass the test we troubleshoot and figure out why it does not >>>> pass the test ... and we change things OUTSIDE the SRPM to fix the >>>> problem. >>> Yes, and those changes are closed. >>> >>> But then again we first have to establish the notion that a CentOS release >>> that is 2 or 3 months behind RHEL is a huge security problem to CentOS >>> users (and probably to the CentOS infrastructure as well). >>> >>> I don't think it makes any sense to discuss the CentOS project's >>> transparency if we cannot admit that we are doing a lousy job regarding >>> our core business. The lack of competition in this space surely didn't >>> help keeping us on our toes. >>> >> Hello, >> >> So, if for some reasons I want to rebuild a centos (for educational); It >> will not work because of >> missing "hack" never published? > no, it will work once the person who wants to do the rebuild follows the > instructions already published and uses the device named "brain". And casts a magic spell to find those instructions. I'm looking through logs and wiki.centos.org, and having *real* difficulty finding them. In particular, the bootstrapping configurations necessary to build CentOS 6 from scratch on a CentOS 5.x machine seem missing, especially access to the testing SRPM's that have already been patched to work in a non-RHEL environment. Or do you see something I don't?