On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 03:37:28PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 4/11/2011 2:59 PM, Tru Huynh wrote: > > > >>> Make your own experiment (i.e rebuild your own clone) and document/report back > >>> what you find out as the proper order of rebuild of the upstream SRPMS ? > >> > >> So having everyone repeat the same mistakes with no coordination is your > >> idea of doing things faster? > > who is everyone? > > I might throw some time and equipment at it if I knew I wasn't > re-inventing square wheels (or even round ones for that matter). And I > suspect that others smarter than I am would do the same and maybe even > improve the approach by coming up with ways to predict the build > environment needed to reproduce a given binary to reduce the > trial-and-error time. Same answer for you than I made for Dag, volonteer to coordinate, build, write scripts, publish *your* work and you will be helping your fellows. > But I don't see this happening if the process > stays closed any more than I think there would be a useful Linux today - > or most of the packages comprising Red Hat's product - if development > had not been open and shared. I only see wasted time talking, no actions. I will be happy to be proven wrong. Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110411/b4de355d/attachment-0005.sig>