[CentOS-devel] progress?

Sun Feb 20 04:44:44 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/19/2011 10:16 PM, 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?

There are no HACKS, no.

Red Hat has undocumented build requirements.

It is not a HACK to run the command yum install yum-metadata-parser and
then rebuild the rpm again after you run the tmverifyrpms script and
find that it needs to be added because of a bad link.

When did it become the CentOS Project's responsibility to publicly
publish the upstream provider's missing build requirements?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110219/daebb813/attachment-0005.sig>