[CentOS-devel] progress?

Mon Feb 21 14:41:34 UTC 2011
jean-seb <jsh at interlug.net>

Le 21/02/2011 18:22, Dag Wieers a écrit :
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 02/20/2011 07:21 PM, Steve Meyers wrote:
>>> On 2/20/11 12:03 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>>> I know i've already said that in that thread (but a lot of people have
>>>> 'echoed' their own answers too, right ?:-)  ) but i've had personally
>>>> the case where people were asking to 'help the project' and when they
>>>> were pointed to either improving the website, translate the wiki,
>>>> chasing after potential banding issues, etc, etc .. the only answer i've
>>>> got*multiple*  times was "no, i'm not interested in doing that : i just
>>>> want to rebuild packages" .. so each time it proved me that such people
>>>> aren't interested in helping the project as a whole, but instead just
>>>> want to focus on build issues. I'm really wondering (and still*my*
>>>> opinion) if those people are interested in CentOS as a project, or just
>>>> want to 'suck' some build scripts (which are just wrappers around
>>>> mock/plague as stated so much times in that thread) to produce their own
>>>> respins.
>>> Does rebuilding packages not count as helping the project?  If the
>>> release speed is seen as the biggest problem with the project, why do
>>> you assume ulterior motives for people who want to help out with the effort?
>>> For goodness sake, it's an open source project.  Who cares if the
>>> occasional person wants to produce their own respin.
>> External rebuilds of packages could never be used by this project, or
>> any other project.
> Johnny,
> For heaven's sake. The fact that users can rebuild has many applications 
> even if the RPMs will never be part of CentOS (for obvious reasons).
>   * You create a community of people that can help troubleshoot problems
>     and report problems upstream (less effort for the CentOS developers !)
>     Farkas Levente single-handedly reported most RHEL6 rebuild problems to
>     Red Hat.
>   * This community of people has a higher standard than the current
>     community. Which has been the reason for _not accepting_ more people in
>     various positions (they first have to prove themselves, right ? Prove
>     themselves doing what exactly ?)
>   * Thanks to more people understanding what is involved, the automation
>     part (tools, scripts, ...) can improve as well. You mention that SRPMs
>     are not being changed, but the environment for each build may be
>     adapted. Looks to me a good tool describing this for those packages is
>     useful. (If only to share that information between our advanced users)
>   * The more people involved, the more people you can choose from once
>     crucial members of the team get married, have children, drop dead, or
>     anything else in life that takes away free time put into the CentOS
>     project. It's a clear win-win for the project.
> You mentioned the Fedora project as the most open project you know. Why 
> not learn from how they work ? Obviously packages build by a single 
> Fedora user are not going into Fedora either, but at least nothing in the 
> process is concealed to users, so users can advance and the project 
> improves as well.
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear ... Centos could be
rename as "CloseOS".
Johnny, we all want the same thing;
a good RHEL alternative, with a "best effort" to have security update in
a reasonable time; Well .. maybe the main problem
is that Centos is a toy for 2 (or 3) people that have problems with the
concept so important in free software: "share knowledge, share the work".

It's simple: For a project so popular, if leaders don't care about the
community; the project will die.
Don't underestimate a fork ... see Xorg, Nouveau, Icinga etc... the
reason for this was always the same: a restriction (a non
sense when you're working with free software).

And like I said; if everyone can rebuild the current dev tree, check,
see what's wrong; where is the problem?