> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-devel-bounces at centos.org > [mailto:centos-devel-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of David Hollis > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 14:55 > To: centos-devel at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Building help > > On 03/21/2011 08:07 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote: > > I think I was misunderstood. Our concern is to have the latest from > > the upstream vendor available as soon as possible. > > We run about 30-40 centos systems and about the same in RHEL, it is > > difficult when there are differences. Since we are not > distributing, > > we often recompile (without modification) SRPMs and add > them to our local yum repo as a stop gap. > > > > Other times were are implementing a bugfix, or feature for a given > > customer, we know are way around the few packages we deal > with every day. > > > > I think it would be nice, if our efforts were in sync with > this group > > and benefited everyone. > > I'm completely unaffiliated w/ CentOS development but I think > that while your offer of assistance is greatly appreciated, > it's likely somewhat outside of what the issues that the > CentOS team actually faces. > Rebuilding an SRPM is really a non-issue, and I doubt that > it's even CPU cycles that is a major factor with getting out > an update - especially when it's just updates vs. a entirely > new version of the OS. > > The issue/challenge/difficulty is with rebuilding the SRPM, > ensuring the binary compatibility w/ upstream (were there > missing build-reqs that now made the CentOS version not > include some files or have library/binary differences), > trademark issues, other quirks such as abrt wanting to send > traces to RH's bugzilla). This is something I am very familiar with. I have many time worked with redhat to fix their build requires sections which have not included needed items producing faulty rebuilds. > > For a simple package where rpmbuild --rebuild pkg.src.rpm is > sufficient, there's really nothing to the process. > > I suspect that while the CentOS team could release some of > the updates to 5.5 and/or 5.6 even though the full 5.6 > release hasn't occurred yet, these updates are held back in > the event that an issue is discovered that requires a rebuild > of a package that was thought to be correct and already It would be useful create an inprogress repo of those that made it past the trademark review. > released. There really is no provision for 'errata' to > packages since if upstream releases pkg-1.0-2, CentOS can't > push out pkg-1.0-3 since that now creates differences between > upstream. > When it is ready for publishing build it twice: Release x.y and x.y.0.centosnotbincompat.take.42 Where the centosnotbincompat is excluded from the default repo. > That being said, they have put out the bind97 and php53 > packages, but only in the c5-testing repo allowing for users > that should understand what they are undertaking to > test/utilize them without affecting the general userbase. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.