Le 20/02/2011 16:56, Johnny Hughes a écrit : > 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. > No no, I would like to know the date you had build it "almost" completely (there is some @$§! packages that are hard to build using mock), It's to have a reference into the "initial build" (buggy but close to be build) and the first "alpha release", specially for Centos6. Regards, js. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel