On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 05:07 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2011 4:02 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/11 20:16, Digimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> /putting on asbestos pants.
>>>>>
>>>>> each release is more complex than the last. The web of dependency grows,
>>>>> so the reverse-engineering takes longer and longer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just complete nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of the
>>>> processes involved in rebuilding RHEL. CentOS doesn't reverse-engineer
>>>> anything, they simply rebuild the upstream sources. It's not rocket science.
>>>
>>> It's not simple... They don't ship until they reproduce something that
>>> they consider 'binary compatible' to the upstream binaries, which
>>> depends on a build environment containing some things that don't match
>>> the sources. Some of this is documented for the similar SL build but
>>> they aren't as picky about library linkage versions (which may not
>>> matter functionally anyway).
>>
>> It's unfair to Scientific Linux to imply that Scientific Linux does not
>> care about compatibility. The issues reported on this list by Johnny to
>> discredit SL were found in the 5.6 alpha release, already fixed by SL and
>> improperly used to discredit SL.
>>
>> Johnny found those packages when comparing his own build-issues against
>> Scientific's Linux release, while the Scientific Linux project has no such
>> means to do the same because CentOS does not provide public alpha and beta
>> releases.
>>
>> It's one thing to find an issue in a competing product, but it's another
>> to bring it up on this mailinglist to discredit a competing product
>> (just because it is truly open and has a public alpha release).
>>
>> CentOS obviously looks at how Scientific Linux is fixing issues, but
>> keeping their own fixes secret.
>>
>> PS The notion that Scientific Linux does not care about compatbility is a
>> false claim and it needs to stop.
>>
>
> I did not do anything to discredit anyone and I take exception to that term.
>
> I published an example of WHY CentOS does not release anything until we
> check it via QA. Once something is released, it can not "come back".
Johnny, you are right. I have to apologize for those remarks, they were
out of line. Still the notion exists (and has been repeated) that
Scientific Linux does not care about binary compatibility. Even if this
was not what you intended.
> What I said was what CentOS does if we have a problem (look at other
> distros to see if they have the same problem).
But you have to agree that Scientific Linux does not have that (reverse)
privilege.
> And I have known that all of YOUR concern about the process has always
> been so you can try to steal our users Dag. If you want to steal our
> users for your rebuild then you can do that.
There is no such rebuild at this time. That twitter message was started
with 'Wouldn't it be nice...', but I ran out of 140 characters to make a
statement :)
I was surprised by the reaction though, although I won't be able to pull
that off by myself, hopefully I can add my support to such a project. Even
when being part of the team I have stated that the best thing that could
happen to CentOS is more competition, and I still stand by that.
I know you have been telling people to roll their own too.
--
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@xxxxxxxxx, http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
