On 04/11/2011 11:54 PM, Tru Huynh wrote: > 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. Oh really? If each tech would do his own rebuild and then publish it we would end up with a few thousand more distributions. I doubt we all can then follow all that work. I think we are having this discussion since we want to improve CentOS, not have our own distro. I think if somebody wants his own, he already has it or he is working on it behind closed doors (ahem...). >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110412/7a7a43c6/attachment-0005.html>