On 01/05/2011 02:20 PM, Farkas Levente wrote: > i agree with you Timo. that's my problems too. actually we already > rebuild rhel-6. i fill about 80% of those bugreport in bugzilla.r.c > which is related to rhel-6 rebuild. what's more not just report them > but send the bugfix patches or solutions too. so i hope no one like to > said that i'm not willing to help. I am sure that helps > when you wrote Karanbir, that the first round of rebuild run without > issue, i even ask you about it. you don't tell anything. that's what > we can't call open process. since it's obvious you can't rebuild all > packages without issue (rh also confirm most of the bugfix). I find this very strange, are you saying that the packages cant be built at all ? I am fairly sure things build. What / if they build to the spec and required configs I've not looked at this point. > you don't even response me when i wrote that building rhel-6 on > centos-5 host is not advised. by whom ? and why ? > we also don't know what's the current state of centos-6? > where the centos-6 stay today? > what's missing? did you check the audit status ? what / how much of that is done you think ? > is there any open source control system for centos patches? where the > open not referring to the source control code:-) no there isnt, we dont use a vcs for those - we track in srpms, thats been made clear a few dozen times now - I suggest you start reading this list since you are on it. > can anybody review the current patches _before_ the final release of centos-6? how many patches have you submitted ? what part of the process did you fail at ? > can anybody easily browse the patches and can send fixes or should sure > open all src.rpm and copy out from them. all srpms built so far are available on ftp.redhat.com. > can anybody easily browse the build system? can anybody easily browse > the build log files like in case of fedora koji very useful when > someone like to debug a build or find a problem and even try to fix the buildsystem isnt public, its not going to be. As I had said a few months back we can work on some process to make some info from the system available publicly - but thats not something we want to look at before c6 is out of the door. There is a fair bit of work needed to make that happen, and I feel spending the open-source time we all have ( remember that none of us do this as a day job ) is better spent working on that target at this time. Farkas, the point that you seem to prefer to always ignore is that there is a process in place, and we would really like to stick with that. If you want an upstream you can track and work inside, checkout Fedora that might be more to your liking. - KB