[CentOS-devel] progress?

Sun Feb 20 12:37:47 UTC 2011
jean-seb <jsh at interlug.net>

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.

Could I ask a simple question:
When the Centos6 build (for i386 or x86_64) was release / build  at 100%
(or close) ?