> On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> robert mena wrote: >>> Well, I am just telling that since there is no actual schedule, no >>> plans >>> to change the way things are handled (lack of communication, treat this >>> as >>> personal project etc) the best way to simply forget about it. >>> >>> The solution is good now and will be good whenever it appears. So >>> there >> <snip> >> Actually, it strikes me that I *do* have a question: what are the main >> problems in the build/release? Has RH deliberately obscured some part(s) >> of its build process, or made prerequisites utterly dependent upon >> specific versions of libraries - that is, more than y'all have had to >> deal >> with before? >> >> Note that this is a question about the problemss, *not* about how y'all >> are going about it, nor whining that I Want It Yesterday!!! As someone >> who >> spent a lot of years as a developer (and let's not talk about the death >> march at a former Baby Bell), I like to know the kinds of problems that >> are ongoing, so I can get some feel for what's going on. >> >> mark "sorry, no time to do some of the real work, RL is overwhelming >> at the moment" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > I saw this posted yesterday on h-online.com. > > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Controversy-surrounds-Red-Hat-s-obfuscated-source-code-release-1200554.html I don't think it makes the work for CentOS harder, why should it? The CentOS kernel are 99.9% the same like RedHat's kernel, only very little changes are made to the src package (it may affect the centosplus kernels, but not the main one I guess). Simon