> On 03/04/2011 08:42 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
