On 04/11/2011 11:54 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
Oh really? If each tech would do his own rebuild and then publish it we would end up with a few thousand more distributions. I doubt we all can then follow all that work.On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 03:37:28PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:On 4/11/2011 2:59 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:Make your own experiment (i.e rebuild your own clone) and document/report back what you find out as the proper order of rebuild of the upstream SRPMS ?So having everyone repeat the same mistakes with no coordination is your idea of doing things faster?who is everyone?I might throw some time and equipment at it if I knew I wasn't re-inventing square wheels (or even round ones for that matter). And I suspect that others smarter than I am would do the same and maybe even improve the approach by coming up with ways to predict the build environment needed to reproduce a given binary to reduce the trial-and-error time.Same answer for you than I made for Dag, volonteer to coordinate, build, write scripts, publish *your* work and you will be helping your fellows. I think we are having this discussion since we want to improve CentOS, not have our own distro. I think if somebody wants his own, he already has it or he is working on it behind closed doors (ahem...). But I don't see this happening if the process stays closed any more than I think there would be a useful Linux today - or most of the packages comprising Red Hat's product - if development had not been open and shared.I only see wasted time talking, no actions. I will be happy to be proven wrong. Tru_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos |
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
