On 03/10/2011 10:49 AM, Zenon Panoussis wrote: > > On 03/10/2011 05:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the >>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it, >>> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care >>> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent >>> them? > >> When c6 started off, there was a call for people to get involved - there >> were no scripts, there was nothing to share - the idea was that people >> would help build the bits. So your assumption that there are things were >> not sharing are bogus. > > I'm not talking about 6.0 or any release in particular; I am talking about > CentOS. > > So what about 5.x? Is there any list of packages needed de-branding? Any > notes about hidden dependencies? Is there anything at all on 5.x that you > could share with us? Or on 4.x for that matter? > Every file changed in debranding is in the release notes and has a .centos in the name. Do an 'ls *centos*' and you will know. I already published a list of all the build root changes, in a reply to you 5 minutes ago. But, that list is outdated as soon as we release new packages because they fix things. An example is the issue we were having today with util-linux on the 5.6 build. Here is the scenario. The QA team did a compare on util-linux with the upstream RPM and it failed, so we need to rebuild it. I submitted it for rebuild and it failed to build. Another member of the QA team finds this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677452 So, I have 2 choices, I build it with the old gettext or I modify the SRPM and add the new patch from the bugzilla. Since we have a no change policy, I built util-linux against a 5.5 tree with all the updates. We will likely not need to build util-linux again until they make the change that fixes this issue. If I listed this on the wiki, I would also have to remember to change it when it is no longer applicable. It is already listed on the RHEL bugzilla site, so if I search for it there the next time I have the problem (if there ever is a next time) it will still be there. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110310/8076e8fa/attachment-0007.sig>