peter.meier at immerda.ch
Mon Jul 21 20:27:56 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Also interesting to know what the plans for SCL 1.1 for C6 are? I
>> assumed that development there are/were hold back because of C7, but
>> given that they bring some significant improvements, it would be nice
>> if they are going to be released soon.
> I am trying to build them, however I am running into issues as not
> everything needed to build them is part of SCL for RHEL .. for example:
> So, the issue is that there are build requires missing from several of
> the packages, so decisions need to be made how and where to create these
> new build requires and how they need to be maintained, etc.
Johnny, thanks a lot for your extensive summary of the problems you ran
into and the possible ways out.
> I can find, via softwarecollections.org, packages to build the packages
> in RHEL 1.1 SCLs now ... however, I am not at all sure that those
> additional 'Build Require' packages will be maintained for security
> updates in the future, etc. Since there is clearly no ability to use
> 'officially' maintained code to be able to produce these packages, I am
> reluctant to officially produce them for CentOS at this time. (see the
> above linked comment, I don't think the 'Build Require' packages which
> are not actually part of the RHEL SCLs are going to be released)
> Scientific Linux has produced these SCLs here:
> Since I am personally uncomfortable putting the CentOS name on SCLs that
> I can not verify are the same as upstream because the repo is not self
> hosting (ie, they are not saying what they are building against and not
> providing or publicly auditing these 'Build Require' packages for
> security, etc), I am not planning on officially releasing these
I totally understand your concerns and agree with your conclusion.
> We can, as a SIG, decide to produce and maintain secure all
> the 'Build Require' packages but that is going to require people willing
> to figure out AND maintain those packages that are needed. In the
> meantime, I recommend you use the packages produced by Scientific Linux
> if you want to use SCLs that are known as RHEL 1.1 for EL6.
Right, I also think that having a SIG for that would be the best option
and actually if SL already did the hard work, it would be nice if a
collaboration could happen.
SCLs are really something of the most innovative things that came out
within the EL-ecosystem in the past few years and which has the
potential to make the platform really more interesting for developers
and others that have "more modern" requirements than the latest major EL
Hence, it would be a pitty if the CentOS platform wouldn't support it in
I'm not writing that to say that *you* should do something about that,
more to just share my opinion.
I'm not sure if I could be part of such a SIG, but would certainly
welcome such an initiative and try to support it in some way...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the CentOS-devel