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