On Mon, 23 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Community effort or not, it did once seem like you had goals
> for timeliness as well. Are you happy with the current
> situation? If more community participation is off the
> table, what else could help?
Johnny points out that we get crickets at he end of these
threads ... the last paragraph of this email proposes a
solution YOU should like and find COMPLETELY meets your needs
The issuance sequencing of the recent 4 and 5 updates were
intentionally placed ahead of 6. I've published such a method
for non-root rpm building in my personal 'tips' webpage dating
from before there WAS a CentOS, in the CentOS wiki, and in
this mailing list. We have an unsolicited confirmation on this
mailing list that the method outlined used works, for those
people who find themselves constrained by the requirements of
self or others to 'front-run CentOS' release of such, and put
non-centos content in place pending CentOS' formal release of
such
If a person NEEDS updates the second the upstream issues them,
and is unwilling to follow the self-build front-run method,
they probably need a SLA from a vendor meeting their
requirements. CentOS does not offer such, and has no
intentions of doing so
Tell you what, Les -- YOU build what you want, optionally
gathering a 'community', and document what YOU want, and tell
us the URL. We'll all be richer for it. I'll be happy to see
more than talk from you. But then I expect to hear ...
crickets
-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
