On 02/20/2011 06:37 AM, jean-seb wrote: > 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) ? If your question is, when will the CentOS6 build for i386 or x86_64 be released ... and if you want a hard date, well I can not give you one. It will be released the DAY we get a build that passes all our checks that I pointed to here: http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/tmverifyrpms We will then move it to QA where it will be tested. Once it is tested (and we fix any issues), it will be released. It might be 2 weeks from now or 2 months from now. I would like to think it will be closer to 2 weeks, but it will be completed when it gets completed. I would point out that the original "REAL" CentOS release (version 3.1) took about 6-7 months, from sometime in October 2003 (when development started ) until March 19th, 2004 when there was a release. -------------- 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/20110220/3c3b7b47/attachment-0007.sig>