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 11-26-2010, 12:08 PM
Hugo van der Kooij
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

Just an observation:

From looking at http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
there is now way I can tell what is suppose to be discussed on this
mailinglist. It might be usefull to add that information to make it more
clear as to what fits the mailinglist.

Hugo.

--
hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 12:11 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> 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.

As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are
deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.


>>> 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.

Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated
spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to
disinform.

I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me
mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get
updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt.
the build process or alternatives.

Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.

--
-- 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, 02:54 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 01:11 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is
>> incorrect.
> As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are
> deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.

Being pedantic does not imply I am wrong. Your basis for the argument is
flawed, and the lengths you are going to in order to circumvent that
issue is odd.

> Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated
> spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to
> disinform.

So you dont think its worth sticking with the same policy for you as it
does for everyone else ? I'm not disinforming about anything but
clearing out the crazy FUD you are trying to create here.

> I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me
> mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get
> updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt.
> the build process or alternatives.

FUD... You clearly don't get it, why not stop trying and stop giving
yourself all the grief ?

> Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.

I am also fairly sure that the 'internet' does not imply freedom to do
as you want, when you want, where you want - and suite yourself in
anyway you like with no response from anyone. Its the 'where' bit that
you need to go think about a bit.


- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 01:08 PM, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> From looking at http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> there is now way I can tell what is suppose to be discussed on this
> mailinglist. It might be usefull to add that information to make it more
> clear as to what fits the mailinglist.

True. There is some info at http://wiki.centos.org/GettingHelp/ListInfo
but I guess we can do a better job of clearing out the list role in the
mailman page.

If noone else gets to it before me, I'll have a go at night today.

Thanks

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 03:27 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 11/26/2010 01:11 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is
>>> incorrect.
>> As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are
>> deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.
>
> Being pedantic does not imply I am wrong. Your basis for the argument is
> flawed, and the lengths you are going to in order to circumvent that
> issue is odd.

Huh, I stated that we have mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6, which
definitely is useful for a centos-devel list.


>> Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated
>> spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to
>> disinform.
>
> So you dont think its worth sticking with the same policy for you as it
> does for everyone else ? I'm not disinforming about anything but
> clearing out the crazy FUD you are trying to create here.

No, you said I was spamming, which I was not. And I fail to see how
informing about mock packages is FUD.


>> I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me
>> mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get
>> updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt.
>> the build process or alternatives.
>
> FUD... You clearly don't get it, why not stop trying and stop giving
> yourself all the grief ?

What grief ?


>> Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.
>
> I am also fairly sure that the 'internet' does not imply freedom to do
> as you want, when you want, where you want - and suite yourself in
> anyway you like with no response from anyone. Its the 'where' bit that
> you need to go think about a bit.

I think you are turning things around, I am not trying to shut a
discussion down. I didn't do anything wrong by posting there are
recent mock packages available.

Spam and FUD, what's next...

--
-- 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, 06:52 PM
Mike Fedyk
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

So this thread would be ok, in the centos users list then.

The topic of this thread was originally "development" but not of
centos. So it's just users communicating with each other and has
little to do with the development of centos itself.

So IMO let's move this thread over there if it needs to continue at all.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:52 PM
Mike Fedyk
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

So this thread would be ok, in the centos users list then.

The topic of this thread was originally "development" but not of
centos. So it's just users communicating with each other and has
little to do with the development of centos itself.

So IMO let's move this thread over there if it needs to continue at all.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:24 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

Am 26.11.10 17:27, schrieb Dag Wieers:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
[plus several more levels of this]

Can we make a drinking game out of that at FOSDEM? Or you two boxing it
out?

I know both of you, and I know that you really want to do the same:
Further open distributions and packages. I don't want to sound harsh,
but you two really should talk about that in person and stop harassing
each other on public mailing lists - that doesn't go well for both of
you. I know there are differences, but you somehow should overcome this.

One of you less pedantic, one of you more so.

But please, try to stop being childish. Rebuilding RHEL into CentOS is a
very clear task. Offering packages optional to that is another very
clear task. And both are needed and both need to be discussed. Maybe
even on one list - and maybe it is this list.

But getting at each others throats does not help both tasks.

In my (really) not so humble opinion. I know both of you have a
different view on how things could or should be done, but I see no
reason to do that the way you are doing it here at the moment.

Ralph


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:04 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

On 11/26/2010 07:52 PM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> So this thread would be ok, in the centos users list then.

better fit than here. yes.


- 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 05:08 PM.

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