Le 20/02/2011 16:31, Johnny Hughes a écrit : > On 02/20/2011 06:11 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Larry Vaden wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Hi Dag, >>> >>> Help this old former ASR33 operator understand, please: are you saying >>> >>> 1) the changes aren't called out in the bug report to the upstream >>> -or- >>> 2) the bug reports to the upstream aren't timely >>> -or- >>> 3) your choice of words. >> You cut away the meat of my message and focussed on the least important >> bit, the non-transparency. I am more interested how we can do a better >> job in the future. >> >> Remind you that we have had the same discussions on this list in the >> past, including the promises that it would be better in the future. And >> here we are again and the situation is worse than it ever was. >> >> So: >> >> 4) CentOS is not able to release CentOS 5.6 after 2 months and nobody is >> allowed to be critical about it. > You call what you are doing NON-CRITICAL? I think you are not only > allowed, but are being QUITE CRITICAL about it. I wonder how > understanding and nice YOU would be if I came to YOUR mailing list and > showed the same level of CRITICALNESS towards something there. > >> (Despite the fact that the effort to rebuild CentOS 5.6 packages is a >> lot easier than CentOS 6.0 which is already 3 months late) >> >> 5) The same 3 people are responsible for CentOS 4, CentOS 5 and CentOS 6. >> What's more, the fact that there would be three update releases in 3 >> months was predictable. >> >> So despite all the automation, QA team, past promises and whatnot, we >> are not doing a better job today and I had hoped at least some people >> would agree instead of denying there's something wrong with the process >> and blaming the non-volunteers/community for even bringing it up. >> >> And despite what some people may think, I am not _against_ CentOS, in >> fact the only reason why I am bringing it up is because * I * still * >> care ! > Thank you for your concern. > > Oracle does not have the same issues and they just released their > product. SL has not released a final version of their 5.6 or 6.0 > either. Maybe you should put this in perspective. Hello, Could I ask a simple question: When the Centos6 build (for i386 or x86_64) was release / build at 100% (or close) ? Regards, js.