I do appreciate everyone's efforts! I have a few idle servers locally that can be used for compiling, but unfortunately cannot make the servers accessible to the outside. If that helps, I am willing to toss in CPU cycles. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 02/24/2011 10:59 AM, Thomas Bendler wrote: > > 2011/2/23 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org > > <mailto:mail-lists at karan.org>> > > > > On 02/22/2011 08:26 PM, Thomas Bendler wrote: > > > And to make my point clear, I don't believe it is rocket science to > > > get such a release cycle established if _more_ skilled people are > > > involved in the release creation (beyond translation work). > > I do believe you dont know what you are talking about, have done no > > research or aware of the CentOS process. You seem to be going on and > on > > about getting more eyes on the ball, which is exactly what we > attempted > > to do last year, and the option is still open. > > > > > > Funny to know that I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe you can > > be more specific. As I already pointed out in another mail, for me it > > look like that having more than one release at the same time (4.9, 5.6 > > and 6) result in a major slow down of release cycle time. This means for > > me, the project isn't able to scale (correct me if I'm wrong). When the > > project can't scale it is under normal circumstances a matter of human > > resources or technical boundaries. As you told me already in December, > > it is not a technical problem. So from my point of view it could _only_ > > be a matter of human resources in terms that not enough people working > > on the release (again, correct me if I'm wrong). To offer my help I > > asked already in December, please provide a list of packages that don't > > compile so that people that are willing to help can help getting this > > packages compiled (i.e. with differnet mock settings or whatever needed > > to get this compiled). If the recompile isn't possible because the SRPM > > is broken they can submit Bugreports to RH. But I only saw such a list > > on the SL website > > (https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/build/problembyrpm), > > not on the CentOS website. > > > > What I heard in the meantime is that CentOS has a policy that the next > > release must be compiled with CentOS what I think is a bit funny simply > > because RedHat don't use a build environment based in RedHat (I read an > > article in the press indicating that they use FC12 koji with some FC13, > > FC14 backports, but I can't proof this). But the point is still, if you > > and your team allow skilled people to support you in the release > > creation (not by signing packages or so, but to work out open items, > > problems, whatsoever) it is something that the CentOS project will > > benefit, specially if you look at the mails currently on the list, most > > mails are from the same type, when is CentOS X.X released and why isn't > > it already released. > > Why isn't SL released yet ... why did Oracle only release it last week > ... because it takes time and it is hard. > > If you want to use CentOS, feel free to use it. If you don't, feel free > to leave. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110224/5128f84b/attachment-0007.html>