On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Johnny Hughes wrote:
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
I am hoping that they will be fixed in the final release. Did not want to
have to fix things twice.
fc6 files on fc6). We did not want that approach, as one of our goals
Everything we built was built on RHEL 5 beta 2. Mostly in a mock chroot.
If it did not build and it was easy for me to fix I just fixed it
otherwise I borrowed the rpm from RHEL 5 beta 2. RHEL 5 beta 2 contained
alot of .fc6 rpms, but the SRPMS provided had .el5 rpms. So I just put in
the .el5 rpms as that was what was provided.
I just wanted to get something out and to get a head start are building SL
5.x , did not expect the "Very Alpha" of BETA2 to be a finished product.
Guess I was going for the "release early" part of open source.
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.
We expect self hosting too.
Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
-Connie Sieh
Scientific Linux Developer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
