On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:59:28AM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Hi Dag, > > On 02/23/2011 10:01 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > > No they can not. The bottom line is, people can try to reverse engineer > > the process CentOS is using, but they may never be sure it's like what > > CentOS did. So your statement is incorrect. > > I am not sure how to say this any other way, its been said many times > over and over again : we dont use any super magic juice anywhere, its > mostly just mock in a for loop. Lets assume that there still exists some > fear and doubt somewhere about the process in exact terms. > > then lets take up the conversation on list where I said that once 6 is > our of the door, I'll document what and how things worked for the build > process ( including the pause's and why they took place. Would that > remove some of this FUD layers ? A good start for this is available at http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/ Some further bits are also available in bugzilla reports at redhat.com, so this should really be updated to reflectthe complete data, also from the CentOS project. > > > Hence my joke that the 'C' in CentOS actually means Closed. > > I dont agree, if you said 'C' in CentOS is mispelled 'Slower than > ideal', I'd agree :) > > > That said, if CentOS wants it this way they sure have every right to do it > > like this. But it would be nice to state that upfront. > > Propose a wording snippet ? Having the discussion on how to move between Closed / Slow / Community is hopefully a good sign for the project. It hurts that rebuilding parts of e.g. 5.6 is so easy and we seem to spoil any efford to combine forces for a quick rebuild that also builds up more and more knowledge for a solid rebuild... best regards, Florian La Roche