On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: >> Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have: > > For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after > RHEL6. > The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their "Build Roots" in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM). These "phantom" RPMS (non released by Red Hat, but in their build tree for their initial development of the OS) are sometimes very hard to replicate. They are versions that are no where to be found. Oracle has supposedly released their EL 6 build (last Friday) ... but they have not released their sources as of this post. http://oss.oracle.com/el5/ <=== EL 5 Sources http://oss.oracle.com/el6/ <=== 404 Error Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree either. > It's amazing how much smoother things would be, in regards to controlling > the anticipation *if* we could find some regular updates on the progress. > > We don't need exact dates, but an idea of how the progress is going. Also > some progress information of what is troublesome? What is taking time? > How can the rest of the community help? This information could be given > out even bi-weekly, and I'm sure it would calm down this tension a lot. And how much more time does that add to the development process. It is already taking too long for you, so you want the developers to spend more time on other things? They don't have enough time now to spend on CentOS, how is adding time to the process going to help. When they try, it is seen as not enough (see you comments below). > The whole CentOS release progress is surprisingly closed, considering it is > an open source project. > CentOS releases our source on exactly the same day as our binary files. We published scripts and RPMS on how we generate our build system, on how we check our binaries, on how we generate our ISOs. How is that not open? (See if you can get Red Hat or Oracle to tell you what they use as a build engine for their enterprise products ...) We do not KNOW how long it is going to take to get this right .. especially CentOS 6. We have NO IDEA what problems we are going to incur until we hit them. There is NO WAY to know what RPM is not going to build correctly until it fails to build. There is no way to figure out why it did not build until you see the errors. Sometimes the build of a package seems complete, but the package does not contain the correct files or it is not linked against the correct packages. Sometimes the order of building the packages is important. Sometimes there are interim build packages that upstream had in their build roots that do not exist anywhere outside their build system, and that impacts how things build. We have to design a whole new build system for the new TREE, we have to bootstrap the packages in the correct order to build the tree. Once we have that tree, we need to build it again. Sometimes the underlying OS that the build roots run in (Build roots get built dynamically to build each package in a clean environment) matters. The bottom line is that is process is trial and error, especially the first one in a series (the .0 build). > Is it really too much to ask for information on the progress? And > frankly, these references below doesn't shed too much light on the situation > > <http://twitter.com/centos> > <http://www.karan.org/blog/index.php> > <http://planet.centos.org/> > > I'm sorry if I've missed some other more obvious places with more updated > information ... so if that is the case, please enlighten me. If you want timely enterprise open source software, you should: 1. Pay for it from RHEL 2. Learn to build it yourself, then you can ask yourself how long it is going to take. You still won't know ... but you will know who you yell at. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110216/f20bfece/attachment-0004.sig>