On 02/22/2011 12:16 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote: > On 02/20/2011 02:16 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> 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? > > Oh. My previous comment was sent before I noticed this other branch of > this thread on the archives. Having read this now, my suggestion of > publishing 'BRPM' type files would not make sense, if a goal of the > CentOS project is to prevent potential downstreams (i.e. spins). > > That's not open-source-cool in my book, but I didn't mean to be tilting > at windmills on this list. > > -Bill > > We have no issue with people rebuilding things ... we just do not think it is our responsibility to hold their hand. We provide more information than any other project out there. We have provided scripts that use mock, we have provided rpmmacros, we have provided buildsys-build files, we published an ISO build script and a distro build script, we publish every SRPM (including all our changes), we published a list of all the hidden build requirements on the mailing list. I am available for consulting if you would like for me to install things or build things for you (you being anyone on the list who wants to pay for my services). -------------- 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/20110222/2bcdbb52/attachment-0007.sig>