[CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag

Tue Jun 30 23:10:37 UTC 2009
Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk>

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
>