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 03-29-2011, 03:26 PM
Matthew Miller
 
Default I want to help

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 05:03:55AM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> > Just today I read in LWN( https://lwn.net/Articles/435744/ ) about the
> > problems with CentOS.
> Posting restricted content links that are available to paying
> subscribers only is, shall we say, useless in the general case.

The content will be available for free in two weeks.

Within that time, subscribers can generate links to a free version of the
content to share with others. LWN is a valuable resource that I highly
encourage _anyone_ interested in or dependent on Linux to subscribe. But if
anyone in the CentOS development community would like access to this
article, please e-mail me off-list. (It would be abusive of their trust to
just post it to the list, of course, but since this seems like an important
article for the project I'd like people who need timely access to be able to
see it.)

--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-30-2011, 10:26 AM
Dag Wieers
 
Default I want to help

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, R P Herrold wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Marian Marinov wrote:
>
>> Here is the first part of the article( the one that made me
>> ask if I can help): ...
>
> People who wander in after reading a month old article and do
> not 'do the homework' of learning the culture of a project and
> its history before posting are probably not going to be
> particularly productive, and would represent a net expenditure
> of effort to 'bring up to speed'.

The LWN article mentioned is a fresh one. Here it is:

http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/435744/90e3f3375232094a/


> This is not the time for such efforts, and as indicated by the first
> post mentioned, not the venue, either

If this is not the venue, there is no venue.

And regarding time, the project has missed the opportunities the past 3
years to fix the issues. Besides the issues only appear when it's not the
time to discuss them.

--
-- 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 03-30-2011, 01:57 PM
Tom Sorensen
 
Default I want to help

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Dag Wieers <dag@wieers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Marian Marinov wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the first part of the article( the one that made me
>>> ask if I can help): ...
>>
>> People who wander in after reading a month old article and do
>
> The LWN article mentioned is a fresh one. Here it is:

To be clear -- the OP posted within a few hours of the article being
published. It was hardly a "month old article".

>> This is not the time for such efforts, and as indicated by the first
>> post mentioned, not the venue, either
>
> If this is not the venue, there is no venue.

Fully agreed.

> And regarding time, the project has missed the opportunities the past 3
> years to fix the issues. Besides the issues only appear when it's not the
> time to discuss them.

Excepting the 4.9 release, which was extremely timely, point releases
have been slipping more and more. The slippage for 5.6 is now nearly 3
months (RHEL 5.6 was released Jan 13, 2011). The slippage for 6.0 is
nearly 5 months (RHEL 6 was released on Nov 10, 2010), and it's pretty
much guaranteed that RH will release 6.1 before CentOS releases 6.0.

Claiming that the CentOS dev team does not need help building and that
the build process has not become more complicated would appear to be
untrue. But those of us on the outside have to guess at this because
there is absolutely no transparency about the build process. All we've
been told about the 5.6 delays are that there were "niggles". That's
great -- exactly what niggles? What's blown up? Why is none of this
public? THAT is what people are becoming increasingly discontent about
-- a Community project that does not have any real interaction with
the community. Too much is happening behind closed doors, and while I
don't expect anything to change for 5.6 or 6.0 (or 6.1 at this point),
there needs to be work done toward rectifying this when everyone is
not busy as hell with new releases.

Rejecting offers for help in such an offhand way is really just
poisoning the well -- I know several people who are extremely
qualified for rebuilding efforts that will not work with CentOS
because of such offhand dismissals. And, frankly, it's becoming
extremely reminiscent of the final days of Whitebox before the CentOS
project began. Yes, that's harsh, but the parallels are there.

Tom Sorensen
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-30-2011, 10:26 PM
Scott Silva
 
Default I want to help

on 3/30/2011 3:26 AM Dag Wieers spake the following:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Marian Marinov wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the first part of the article( the one that made me
>>> ask if I can help): ...
>>
>> People who wander in after reading a month old article and do
>> not 'do the homework' of learning the culture of a project and
>> its history before posting are probably not going to be
>> particularly productive, and would represent a net expenditure
>> of effort to 'bring up to speed'.
>
> The LWN article mentioned is a fresh one. Here it is:
>
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/435744/90e3f3375232094a/
>
>
>> This is not the time for such efforts, and as indicated by the first
>> post mentioned, not the venue, either
>
> If this is not the venue, there is no venue.
>
> And regarding time, the project has missed the opportunities the past 3
> years to fix the issues. Besides the issues only appear when it's not the
> time to discuss them.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if RedHat was seeding the src rpms with more bad links
and flaws just to make it more difficult for Oracle and others to profit as
easily from their work... We might just be the unfortunate collateral
damage... The GPL says they have to release source, not ready to build rpms.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-31-2011, 04:02 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default I want to help

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 06:26:40 pm Scott Silva wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if RedHat was seeding the src rpms with more bad links
> and flaws just to make it more difficult for Oracle and others to profit as
> easily from their work... We might just be the unfortunate collateral
> damage... The GPL says they have to release source, not ready to build rpms.

Naw, I don't think so. Otherwise they wouldn't fix the bug reports of those missing buildreqs. And while those aren't high-priority to fix, they do get fixed. And it's too easy to just modify the spec file in the source RPM and make them build; a very low hurdle, in other words. The kernel source package's pre-patched source code tarball is a much larger hurdle, not for just rebuilding the package, but for modifying and properly (commercially) supporting those packages.

It's likely a simple case of developers missing the dependencies and not quickly fixing them; and, well, they're in the repository for their buildroots, so it doesn't impact them rebuilding out of their private koji. Buildreqs have always been low priority 'bugs' even before the end of the Red Hat Linux Boxed Sets.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-31-2011, 05:31 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default I want to help

On Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:02:12 pm Lamar Owen wrote:
> The kernel source package's pre-patched source code tarball is a much larger hurdle, not for just rebuilding the package, but for modifying and properly (commercially) supporting those packages.

In re-reading what I posted, I realized that it could be misunderstood to mean that simple rebuilding is made more difficult by the pre-patched tarball being the source; that wasn't what I meant, and I apologize for the error. 'just rebuilding' in this case should be read as 'simply rebuilding' or 'straight rebuilding' or similar; unfortunately English is a rather ambiguous language, and my particular choice of the word 'just' in this instance was particularly ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-31-2011, 05:38 PM
Akemi Yagi
 
Default I want to help

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:02:12 pm Lamar Owen wrote:
>> *The kernel source package's pre-patched source code tarball is a much larger hurdle, not for just rebuilding the package, but for modifying and properly (commercially) supporting those packages.
>
> In re-reading what I posted, I realized that it could be misunderstood to mean that simple rebuilding is made more difficult by the pre-patched tarball being the source; that wasn't what I meant, and I apologize for the error. *'just rebuilding' in this case should be read as 'simply rebuilding' or 'straight rebuilding' or similar; unfortunately English is a rather ambiguous language, and my particular choice of the word 'just' in this instance was particularly ambiguous.

Interesting. I did not see any 'error' in your original writing. It
was quite clear to me. If it was "not only for rebuilding", that
would have been incorrect. :-) But then my native language is .ja, so
...

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-31-2011, 06:30 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default I want to help

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:

> The kernel source package's pre-patched source code tarball is a much
> larger hurdle, not for just rebuilding the package, but for modifying
> and properly (commercially) supporting those packages.

Not only a hurdle for commercial competitors, there were people (like me)
tracking the RHEL kernel builds between releases. In the past they were
available (they still are for RHEL5, but have been removed for RHEL6) so
this move impacts everyone interested in testing those kernel releases or
relied on them for certain hardware support or bugfix.

I don't know that if you have Red Hat support you can still access these
releases, but they were quite useful to CentOS users as well.

References:

http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/el5/
http://people.redhat.com/arozansk/el6/

--
-- 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 03-31-2011, 08:09 PM
Scott Dowdle
 
Default I want to help

Dag,

----- Original Message -----
> I don't know that if you have Red Hat support you can still access
> these releases, but they were quite useful to CentOS users as well.

I don't know if it was what you were referring to or not... but yes, supposedly with a RHN account, you have access to the individual patches for the RHEL6 kernel... although I don't think they have a traditional package as before.

TYL,
--
Scott Dowdle
704 Church Street
Belgrade, MT 59714
(406)388-0827 [home]
(406)994-3931 [work]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-31-2011, 08:49 PM
Dag Wieers
 
Default I want to help

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Scott Dowdle wrote:

>> I don't know that if you have Red Hat support you can still access
>> these releases, but they were quite useful to CentOS users as well.
>
> I don't know if it was what you were referring to or not... but yes, supposedly with a RHN account, you have access to the individual patches for the RHEL6 kernel... although I don't think they have a traditional package as before.

Scott,

I am not interested in the individual patches, just the binary kernel RPM
packages Red Hat used to make available in between releases. Call it their
test or beta kernel releases working up to the next RHEL release. Often
one or two releases every week.

The RHEL5 link should make it clear what I mean.

It gives a nice view on what to expect kernel-wise for the next release,
but also provided a way to test and report any problems quickly.

--
-- 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:20 PM.

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