[CentOS-devel] are there any chances to see finished CentOS6 in 2011?
timo.schoeler at riscworks.net
Wed Jan 5 13:26:24 UTC 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
thus Josh Boyer spake:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
>> Can you quantify what you mean by 'open approach' ( basically, what
>> steps and what gains those steps would bring about )
>>> The aim was to focus people's attention to the upstream beta, better
>>> product and that loop etc. We could have started earlier, sure. But now
>>> that we have started 2 months back and your own contribution status
>>> stays at nil, why are you interested ?
>>> How and what should be contributed if the normal user didn't even know
>>> what problems remains?
>> Problems remain where ? in CentOS or RHEL ? It was RHEL6 that had a
>> public beta, for issues that should have been reported against
>> bugzilla.r.c; or am I misunderstanding what you said ?
>> Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the fact that there are issues
>> and situations that need looking at and changing. But lets do the right
>> thing rather than just doing something. Going by the popularist current
>> mood of people on this list, I think people just want early access to a
>> codebase they can start using for their own use rather than actually
>> working towards building CentOS-6. Which makes me fear that the only way
>> we are going to get C6 out of the door in the next few weeks is by
>> clamping up, talking to the usual-suspects and just going back to the
>> CentOS-5 process. And to be honest, I don't really think these
>> conversations over the past two months have been wasted; but in the
>> grant scheme of things - getting 6.0 out of the door might be a better
>> target for now - as long as we can somehow agree that we get back to
>> this process engineering immediately after so as to not be in the same
>> situation, come 6.1.
>> Also, failback to the CentOS-5 process isn't necessarily a bad thing -
>> we know it works :)
> As a fairly new subscriber, I've not really found anything technically
> wrong with the process. Mostly because I have no idea what the
> process is. From what I can tell, the CentOS developers pick up
> SRPMS, debrand, "magically" build them somehow, and then publish them
> when done.
> There probably isn't anything wrong at all with that, but since it's
> not documented anywhere and the buildsystem being used isn't
> documented either, it's sort of a big black box. So to me, a more
> "open" process could start with simply documenting the actual process,
> including the buildsystem and/or build order of the packages.
Something like Fedora's koji would be nice:
> I've missed this somewhere in the wiki already, but if I have it's
> because it's hard to find (at least in my looking).
> FWIW, I rather liked the call-for-help on debranding, even if it had
> limited participation. I think it's exactly the kind of task that can
> be distributed to relative new-comers and might lead to further
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the CentOS-devel