On 02/20/2011 10:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 2/19/11 10:44 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >> Red Hat has undocumented build requirements. >> >> It is not a HACK to run the command yum install yum-metadata-parser and >> then rebuild the rpm again after you run the tmverifyrpms script and >> find that it needs to be added because of a bad link. >> >> When did it become the CentOS Project's responsibility to publicly >> publish the upstream provider's missing build requirements? > > It's not a matter of responsibility, it's just the way things are improved. > Would we even know something called Linux today if Linus hadn't published his > work publicly instead of making people prove they were worthy to see it first? > If it was MY code that had the missing build requirements, I would publish that no problem. If it was CentOS' code that had the missing requirements, I would also publish that, no problem. It is neither. It is the upstream code that has the issues. I am not sure they want us to publish this. I see no need to potentially irritate them to provide this information. If they wanted it published, they would publish it. If I publish it, then that helps other people like Oracle or whomever, build the upstream product. Have any of you considered what potential impact the CentOS relationship with the upstream provider might suffer if we started publishing things that are negative? -------------- 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/20110220/290cca12/attachment-0007.sig>