Rob Kampen wrote: > Tom Bishop wrote: >> This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks >> to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to >> learn more...Thanks! :) >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com >> <mailto:amyagi at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Changing the subject line for good ... >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu >> <mailto:lowen at pari.edu>> wrote: >> > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote: >> >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. >> Starting >> >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a >> patch, or >> >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) >> far more >> >> nightmarish than before. >> > >> > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could >> impact CentOSPlus. >> >> Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was >> addressed >> early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See: >> >> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586 >> >> Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any >> feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. >> While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 >> (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :) >> >> So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel >> in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note >> 12502). >> > This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build > process and makes me offer the following comment:-/ > > PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of > information about the status of the various build processes and even how > to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure > once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here > - if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem > encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - > then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction. > > Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting > digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the > folk that do the work - go have a look. > > It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon > having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a > dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with > the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new > meaning to the word "iterative". > > My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work > right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do > this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list. > Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum > but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that > appreciates all that you do. > > I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use > - I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied > with the quality of the product. > There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the > CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are > alternatives - they do cost money. > Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is > CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very > informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and > positive manner. > Thanks for reading. +1000