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? Regards, js.