Rob Kampen wrote:
> Tom Bishop wrote:
>> This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks
>> to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to
>> learn more...Thanks! :)
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:amyagi@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Changing the subject line for good ...
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:lowen@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>> >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.
>> Starting
>> >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a
>> patch, or
>> >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.)
>> far more
>> >> nightmarish than before.
>> >
>> > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could
>> impact CentOSPlus.
>>
>> Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was
>> addressed
>> early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
>>
>> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
>>
>> Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
>> feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
>> While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
>> (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
>>
>> So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel
>> in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note
>> 12502).
>>
> This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build
> process and makes me offer the following comment:-/
>
> PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of
> information about the status of the various build processes and even how
> to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure
> once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here
> - if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem
> encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem -
> then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.
>
> Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting
> digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the
> folk that do the work - go have a look.
>
> It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon
> having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a
> dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with
> the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new
> meaning to the word "iterative".
>
> My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work
> right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do
> this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list.
> Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum
> but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that
> appreciates all that you do.
>
> I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use
> - I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied
> with the quality of the product.
> There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the
> CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are
> alternatives - they do cost money.
> Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is
> CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very
> informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and
> positive manner.
> Thanks for reading.
+1000
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
