On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:22 -0500, Tom Diehl wrote: > Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:21 -0500, Jerry Geis wrote: > > > So is beta 2 off - in favor of just waiting for the real RHEL5 release? > > > RH has said it is ready to go and would be released in march. Hopefully > > > march 1. HA! > > > > > > > More like March 15th (and don't hold your breath :P) > > > > We will release a beta ... as we are close now at fixing everything. > > Just out of couriosity, would you be willing to comment on the issues the CentOS > team is running up against. Given upstream's decision to scrap the old way > of spinning and distributing the distro I would imagine some of them are large > problems. Well ... the majority of our problems are coming from the fact that upstream did not build everything on the same builder. They grabbed .fc6 stuff as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their el5 builder). Many items are compiled against different kernel-headers, etc. Because of that, we needed to fix a bunch of stuff that we normally don't need to. Also, the whole Registration thing (you need this number to use the Server repo and that number to install VT, etc.) we are by passing, as well as removing all the RHN bits. Scientific Linux took a different approach (they released several of the upstream files that do not build on el5 ... and I think they build the fc6 files on fc6). We did not want that approach, as one of our goals is that the repo is self-hosting was well (meaning that it will completely build on itself). Not that the Scientific Linux approach is wrong, we thought about doing it that way too. But in the end, we wanted it self hosting and all built on el5. Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
