FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-25-2010, 09:01 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 25/11/2010 21:54, Dag Wieers wrote:
> The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package,

and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list

> which incidentally is what CentOS is doing.

so should we all move to the lkml since that's effectively what it all
boils down to, isn't it ?

I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
didn't have any such problem.

> And the C in CentOS stands for
> community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with
> that.

I know you like to beat that drum often, but then I guess thats your
right too.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-25-2010, 09:37 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 25/11/2010 21:54, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package,
>
> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list

It's the closest there is.


>> which incidentally is what CentOS is doing.
>
> so should we all move to the lkml since that's effectively what it all
> boils down to, isn't it ?

No, except if you think in black-and-white.


> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
> didn't have any such problem.

Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.


>> And the C in CentOS stands for
>> community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with
>> that.
>
> I know you like to beat that drum often, but then I guess thats your
> right too.

Only why I think you're unreasonable. It is in fact very similar to when
you objected when I announced the availability of kmod packages for eg.
CentOS. That was considered off-topic as well.

Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
doesn't trigger you ?

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-25-2010, 09:42 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
> It's the closest there is.

that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request

>> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
>> didn't have any such problem.
>
> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.

I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked
at this the rest of this thread have you ?

> Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
> doesn't trigger you ?

Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
on this list but plenty of other places as well.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 12:04 AM
Jerry Amundson
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
>> It's the closest there is.
>
> that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request

In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one*
connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is
certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of
the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a
rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this*
list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?

Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive
hogwash, and it could have just as easily been stated at the very
beginning when OP stated very openly, "(Posting on this list instead
of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I
expect CentOS developers to be familiar
with the problem I'm running into.)".

>>> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
>>> didn't have any such problem.

Ah yes, the Royal "We". FWIW, I missed that "bit" also - I see no such
statement in this thread.

>> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
>> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
>
> I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked
> at this the rest of this thread have you ?

"Guessing" as to what each, or any, list member has read, or not read,
is both wrong and unwelcome.

>> Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
>> doesn't trigger you ?
>
> Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
> get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
> on this list but plenty of other places as well.

The latter comment may fit in at alt.therapy.centos, but here it
sounds judgemental and controlling.
1. Delete the bothersome e-mail.
2. Move on.

That said, I segue into a "Thank you". :-)
No really, I mean it. I'm nearing the end of our Thanksgiving holiday
here in the US, and I am again thinking of the time and effort of so
many people that makes CentOS what it is - sincerely, "Thank You" to
everyone. Just please, don't contribute *emotional* time and
effort.....

jerry
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 02:02 AM
Douglas McClendon
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/25/2010 07:04 PM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singh<mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>>> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
>>> It's the closest there is.
>>
>> that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
>
> In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one*
> connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is
> certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of
> the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a
> rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this*
> list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
>
> Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive


As an observer who has been entirely guilty of being poisonly dramatic
on other fedora-lists, but who has hopefully matured, I have to agree
with this. On the other hand I also have to say that Dag's responses
were equivalently thoughtless in regard to actually building up the
community, instead of just inciting KS to dig deeper into his position.

On the other other hand, that doesn't mean I think those 'thoughtless'
comments were wrong. I.e. if KS really does feel that strongly,
moderation is the real answer that would facilitate a community without
these sorts of non-productive, community-poisoning heal-digging-in drama
fests.

$0.02...

-dmc




> hogwash, and it could have just as easily been stated at the very
> beginning when OP stated very openly, "(Posting on this list instead
> of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I
> expect CentOS developers to be familiar
> with the problem I'm running into.)".
>
>>>> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
>>>> didn't have any such problem.
>
> Ah yes, the Royal "We". FWIW, I missed that "bit" also - I see no such
> statement in this thread.
>
>>> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
>>> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
>>
>> I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked
>> at this the rest of this thread have you ?
>
> "Guessing" as to what each, or any, list member has read, or not read,
> is both wrong and unwelcome.
>
>>> Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
>>> doesn't trigger you ?
>>
>> Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
>> get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
>> on this list but plenty of other places as well.
>
> The latter comment may fit in at alt.therapy.centos, but here it
> sounds judgemental and controlling.
> 1. Delete the bothersome e-mail.
> 2. Move on.
>
> That said, I segue into a "Thank you". :-)
> No really, I mean it. I'm nearing the end of our Thanksgiving holiday
> here in the US, and I am again thinking of the time and effort of so
> many people that makes CentOS what it is - sincerely, "Thank You" to
> everyone. Just please, don't contribute *emotional* time and
> effort.....
>
> jerry
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:38 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>>> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
>>> didn't have any such problem.
>>
>> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
>> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
>
> I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked
> at this the rest of this thread have you ?

I actually did, in fact I have read all the emails and usually refrain
from replying when I have an opinion (given my past).


>> Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
>> doesn't trigger you ?
>
> Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
> get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
> on this list but plenty of other places as well.

I guess that's matter of opinion. The availability of recent mock packages
for CentOS fits the centos-devel bill, just as the availability of
kmod-packages for CentOS belongs on the general centos mailinglist.

Why you feel the urge to abort threads when they become interesting is
food for speculation, though. (Without having to bring up anyone's mental
state)

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 09:16 AM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

Le 26/11/10 04:02, Douglas McClendon a écrit :
> On 11/25/2010 07:04 PM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singh<mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>>>> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
>>>> It's the closest there is.
>>> that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
>> In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one*
>> connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is
>> certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of
>> the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a
>> rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this*
>> list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
>>
>> Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive
>
> As an observer who has been entirely guilty of being poisonly dramatic
> on other fedora-lists, but who has hopefully matured, I have to agree
> with this. On the other hand I also have to say that Dag's responses
> were equivalently thoughtless in regard to actually building up the
> community, instead of just inciting KS to dig deeper into his position.
>
> On the other other hand, that doesn't mean I think those 'thoughtless'
> comments were wrong. I.e. if KS really does feel that strongly,
> moderation is the real answer that would facilitate a community without
> these sorts of non-productive, community-poisoning heal-digging-in drama
> fests.
>
> $0.02...
>
> -dmc

Each Flag war is shamefull for the protagonists and hurts all the
community. I'd rather read some less appropriated topics than I can
quickly bypass if I don't feel concerned. Technical debates are welcome,
Personal conflicts are unpolite. Centos merits better.

JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 10:55 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 01:04 AM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
>> that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
> In my opinion, it's both right and welcome.

Thats fine, refer back to the conversation on the centos list about
having an overflow / things that might or might not be related etc list.
If you want to express opinion on what and how something like that might
run, post comments there.

This list, is still the centos-devel list, its about development and
admin issues within the centos project. So lets try and think about that
and keep it to that.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
> quickly bypass if I don't feel concerned. Technical debates are welcome,

And you think the idea of 'relevant technical debate' is optional ?

Quite aware of the fact that I am being borderline pedantic here, but
its critical we keep the important things in mind. If being extremist to
some level is needed to highlight that, then so be it.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 11:15 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 07:38 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
>>> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
> I actually did, in fact I have read all the emails and usually refrain
> from replying when I have an opinion (given my past).

I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is
incorrect.

>> Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
>> get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
>> on this list but plenty of other places as well.
>
> I guess that's matter of opinion. The availability of recent mock packages
> for CentOS fits the centos-devel bill, just as the availability of
> kmod-packages for CentOS belongs on the general centos mailinglist.

Thats just bollocks. If every project was to announce every package in
the main list, were looking at thousands of announcements there. You
were repremanded after repeated spamming, not when you announced the
efforts. And I am confident that we have been consistent with that
policy over the years. Quite a few people have announced efforts and
points of interest, its only when they digress into spamming have people
objected.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org