[CentOS] Re: BETA 2
Connie Sieh
csieh at fnal.gov
Thu Feb 22 15:15:49 UTC 2007
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:22 -0500, Tom Diehl wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:21 -0500, Jerry Geis wrote:
>>>> So is beta 2 off - in favor of just waiting for the real RHEL5 release?
>>>> RH has said it is ready to go and would be released in march. Hopefully
>>>> march 1. HA!
>>>>
>>>
>>> More like March 15th (and don't hold your breath :P)
>>>
>>> We will release a beta ... as we are close now at fixing everything.
>>
>> Just out of couriosity, would you be willing to comment on the issues the CentOS
>> team is running up against. Given upstream's decision to scrap the old way
>> of spinning and distributing the distro I would imagine some of them are large
>> problems.
>
> Well ... the majority of our problems are coming from the fact that
> upstream did not build everything on the same builder. They
> grabbed .fc6 stuff as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their
> el5 builder).
>
> Many items are compiled against different kernel-headers, etc.
>
> Because of that, we needed to fix a bunch of stuff that we normally
> don't need to.
>
> Also, the whole Registration thing (you need this number to use the
> Server repo and that number to install VT, etc.) we are by passing, as
> well as removing all the RHN bits.
>
> Scientific Linux took a different approach (they released several of the
> upstream files that do not build on el5 ... and I think they build the
I am hoping that they will be fixed in the final release. Did not want to
have to fix things twice.
> fc6 files on fc6). We did not want that approach, as one of our goals
Everything we built was built on RHEL 5 beta 2. Mostly in a mock chroot.
If it did not build and it was easy for me to fix I just fixed it
otherwise I borrowed the rpm from RHEL 5 beta 2. RHEL 5 beta 2 contained
alot of .fc6 rpms, but the SRPMS provided had .el5 rpms. So I just put in
the .el5 rpms as that was what was provided.
I just wanted to get something out and to get a head start are building SL
5.x , did not expect the "Very Alpha" of BETA2 to be a finished product.
Guess I was going for the "release early" part of open source.
> is that the repo is self-hosting was well (meaning that it will
> completely build on itself). Not that the Scientific Linux approach is
> wrong, we thought about doing it that way too. But in the end, we
> wanted it self hosting and all built on el5.
>
We expect self hosting too.
> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes
>
>
>
-Connie Sieh
Scientific Linux Developer
More information about the CentOS
mailing list