[CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag

Wed Jul 1 00:07:02 UTC 2009
Lucian@lastdot.org <lucian at lastdot.org>

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ned Slider<ned at unixmail.co.uk> wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
>>> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
>>> at present), ...
>> It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case.
> Then we disagree. Others can look and judge for themselves :)
>> I wish people not in the know would not purport to
>> characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human
>> trait, I guess
> Bingo! That's the whole point Russ - members of the Community don't know
> what's going on with *their* Community Enterprise OS because there is no
> dissemination of information.
> What I *do* "know" is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before
> that 4.7 took ~7 weeks. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release
> cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be
> expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release.
> Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame -
> depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps
> this is where we disagree above.
> Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS Project
> concentrate on the core product and do a really good job on that (i.e, a
> move closer to the old 4 week release lag than the current 10 week
> release lag), and I would much rather see this than effort diluted by
> taking on a contrib repo.


>> I would note that from the earliest days of RPMForge, Dag
>> offered, and indeed granted comit rights to me, which I have
>> not used.  I find it easier to use the bug tracker, and to
>> send emails to him ... lazy of me, I know, but again human
>> nature in play
>> Additionally I regularly pull, fork, and fix 'broken' RF
>> packages [for self, or in consulting engagements], and drop
>> the SRPM's in my personal archive to satisfy GPL source
>> availability obligations.  I've seem parts of my packagings
>> end up elsewhere which is fine
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos