On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/02/11 15:12, Larry Vaden wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Johnny Hughes<johnny at centos.org> wrote: >>> On 02/18/2011 02:26 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:15:32AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat still has not put several of the sources in their public tree >>>>> either. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So CentOS6 cannot be released, or even built completely before >>>> those missing src.rpms are released? >>> >>> Theoretically, it can not be built, so certainly not *released*, until >>> we have all the SRPMS, no. >>> >>> If said SRPMS are on one of the release Source ISOs, then we have them >>> available there, if they are not then we are stuck. >> >> Johnny, >> >> Does<http://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/source/SRPMS/vendor/> >> contain anything y'all need that you don't already have? >> > > No disrespect Larry, but pulling missing SRPM packages from Scientific > Linux is not the answer. The answer lies in comparing those packages > available on Red Hat's public ftp servers with those in the distro and > filing bugs against the missing SRPM packages. Red hat are usually quick > to respond to such issues. No disrepect, Ned, but with http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06510, I'm wondering if RH is treating the CentOS project differently than the national labs. You may not find that interesting, but perhaps I am not as alone as you might think. RH and CentOS have been fundamental to our operation going on 15 years. Karanbir and Johnny et al have made great contributions to the community. I personally don't see how the RH team could have screwed up and omitted SRPMs from the manifest, but I certainly believe they did according to reports. kind regards/ldv/vaden at texoma.net