Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
CR repo as a necessary event?
Depends on if you feel that security updates are important to your
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:47:24PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
but why in the world is an extra repo needed for security-updates?
it is like a bad joke installing a os and have to search how
to install a repo for ESSENTIAL updates while most people
think i have a package manager and get
On 11/15/2011 04:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
CR repo as a necessary event?
Depends on if you feel
On 11/15/2011 02:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
CR repo as a necessary event?
Depends on if you feel that
Vreme: 11/16/2011 12:21 AM, Nataraj piše:
The current build problems are hopefully a temporary situation and if
they are resolved CentOS users will have the option of the rolling
updates or waiting for the update release. For most users, installing
updates from the CR repo is the best choice,
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:24:24 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
If, in fact, you cannot rebuild a src rpm and get a working
copy then in that respect you might as well be using closed,
proprietary software.
Working and binary compatible are two different things, and typically the
100% binary
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:24:24 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
If, in fact, you cannot rebuild a src rpm and get a working
copy then in that respect you might as well be using closed,
proprietary software.
Working and binary
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:53:29 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
Try the other way around: build RHEL from their src rpms, try to run
the 3rd party binary... I thought you said that didn't work. If you
can't rebuild that source so it works, you might as well not use open
source.
Ok, let me
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:53:29 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
Try the other way around: build RHEL from their src rpms, try to run
the 3rd party binary... I thought you said that didn't work. If you
can't rebuild that source
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't care in general, but dislike hypocrisy. If you are going to
claim to be open source, it should work to rebuild.
les ... go rent a forum of your own -- this has no centos
aspect any more
-- Russ herrold
If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
In which concrete use cases is 100% binary compatibility important?
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier mbaud...@argeo.org wrote:
If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
In which
Vreme: 11/01/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Peltonen piše:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudiermbaud...@argeo.org wrote:
If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is,
Scientific Linux is
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Peter Peltonen peter.pelto...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier mbaud...@argeo.org wrote:
If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote:
No clone distros, including CentOS and Scientific Linux, are perfect.
If someone asks which of the two has a better binary compatibility, I
would answer, they are equally good.
One of the 'selling points' as a big reason to
On 10/30/2011 8:33 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 08:38 PM, William Warren wrote:
Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term
support like Centos.
What...Ubuntu LTS?
___
CentOS mailing list
On Monday, October 31, 2011 07:46:59 AM William Warren wrote:
Like I said before It it too
bad RH is doing what they are doing. It is going to mean the death of
RHEL rebuilds...look at what is happening to Centos. Per Johnny's
statement they can't truly maintain 100% binary compatibility.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, William Warren
I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing
delay. The security of many machines is
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, William Warren
I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this
On 10/21/2011 9:23 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 06:25 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
that are introduced in CR repo
On 10/21/2011 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
Read this:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
On 10/21/2011 12:54 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then,
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše:
And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a
long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your
systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The results speak
for themselves. Nothing against the
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:36 PM, William Warren piše:
I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing
delay. The security of many machines is
On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše:
And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a
long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your
systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The
Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security
patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place.
If need be, there can always be another repo that
On Monday, October 31, 2011 12:11 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security
patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 04:31 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Craig Whitecraigwh...@azapple.com wrote:
/me is puzzled. You spelt it correctly. Maybe not so keen on learning
the intricacies of Debian and the 'Debian way'.
Linux is still Linux and while
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 08:38 PM, William Warren wrote:
Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term
support like Centos.
What...Ubuntu LTS?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just been too lazy to learn to
spell apt-get.
/me is puzzled. You
On 10/28/2011 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
centos-l...@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote:
How is, say, being
required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
something you have already
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
day of the
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we
**UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also
tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the
Vreme: 10/29/2011 05:36 PM, Les Mikesell piše:
Also, there is probably room for a public, if not legal, complaint
about gpl compliance if the source and binary components they
distribute don't match in a way that you can rebuild a binary that
works the same. Of course there is a lot of
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 20:56 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote:
/me is puzzled. You spelt it correctly. Maybe not so keen on learning
the intricacies of Debian and the 'Debian way'.
Linux is still Linux and while there is some learning curve, it does
tend to broaden one's
I did not mean to stir up anything.
I was simply asking if I was looking in the wrong place for an update to 6.1
or where are the ISO's?
I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
Thanks
Jerry
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Vreme: 10/30/2011 12:31 AM, Jerry Geis piše:
I did not mean to stir up anything.
I was simply asking if I was looking in the wrong place for an update to 6.1
or where are the ISO's?
I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
Thanks
Jerry
Sorry to be blunt, but you are not
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 06:31:46 PM Jerry Geis wrote:
I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
This has been a useful discourse since the new difficulties that the team is
facing are now more widely known. Sometimes the pot needs a good stirring, and
this time we got what
On Friday, October 21, 2011 10:17:18 AM Giles Coochey wrote:
It appears that this is not the case, and my only option is to take my
servers down the beta route to Centos 6.1 Release Candidates.
This is one area in which CentOS and Scientific Linux are different (and it's
interesting, reading
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
On 10/28/11 8:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owenlo...@pari.edu wrote:
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With_no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
redhat's threat of disabling RHN access for
On Friday, October 21, 2011 02:22:26 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
Which is explicitly imposing additional restrictions. Which is
explicitly prohibited in section 6. I don't see any exceptions
relating to what the consequences of those restrictions might be.
The RHN AUP simply says that if you
On Friday, October 28, 2011 11:29:52 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
Losing access to RHN does not
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of source
I already
On 10/28/2011 06:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owenlo...@pari.edu wrote:
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
Losing access to RHN does not in any way
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
centos-l...@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote:
How is, say, being
required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
something you have already contracted and paid for?
It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or
On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
centos-l...@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote:
How is, say, being
required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
something you have already contracted and paid for?
It would surprise me if
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
As I
On Friday 28 October 2011 18:54:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
redistribute, given that
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to
redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against
you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give
On Friday 28 October 2011 20:45:16 Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free
to redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action*
against you if
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote:
That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term
restriction. The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal
actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions.
True, and that is why it
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Everything's being rolled into the CR repo, so there do not appear to be
any ordinary 6.0 updates.
well yes: upstream is at 6.1, so updates are happening for 6.1 and 6.0
won't receive any more ordinary upates. The update path for 6.0 is
through 6.1 .
centos is offering
On 10/21/2011 06:09 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
well yes: upstream is at 6.1, so updates are happening for 6.1 and 6.0
won't receive any more ordinary upates. The update path for 6.0 is
through 6.1 .
centos is offering CR which allows you to stay up-to-date even though
C6.1 is not
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walsh st...@nerdvana.net.au wrote:
Except.
If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
been built for 6.1 (effectively still in QA), plus some post 6.1
On 10/20/2011 01:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Jerry Geis wrote:
Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
It has been a while since I saw any update...
I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
twitter.com/centos6 nothing there,
went to the qa calendar stuff nothing there.
On 21.10.2011 13:00, Steve Clark wrote:
On 10/20/2011 01:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Jerry Geis wrote:
Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
It has been a while since I saw any update...
I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
twitter.com/centos6 nothing there,
went
- Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com escreveu:
De: Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com
Para: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 21 de Outubro de 2011 9:00:00 (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Assunto: Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
Is there a package for the cr repo? I
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto piše:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walshst...@nerdvana.net.au wrote:
Except.
If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
been built for 6.1
On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
that are introduced in CR repo already PASSED QA testing, but are in
limbo because there are issues with building ISO
: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
Is there a package for the cr repo? I don't see anything like that
when I do a yum repolist all.
Yep, there is a package... but it is on the CR repo:
ftp://(some.centos.mirror)/CentOS/6/cr/x86_64/RPMS/centos-release-cr-6-0.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm
Install
On 10/21/2011 06:36 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 06:16 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto piše:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walshst...@nerdvana.net.au wrote:
Except.
If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you
On 10/21/2011 06:25 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
that are introduced in CR repo already PASSED QA testing, but are in
limbo
Vreme: 10/21/2011 03:09 PM, Johnny Hughes piše:
we don't have a CR repo for centosplus ... and I do not see us creating
one. We are building and testing the plus kernels too and they will be
there on release of 6.1 ... or you can use the ones from toracat's repo.
OK, thanks. I already set up
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:23, Johnny Hughes wrote:
There is SOME QA ... just not all the QA that they get as part of the
main release.
They are not right off the build and into the server ... we do our
functionality test suite prior to pushing CR (and other tests, and look
for repo
On 10/21/2011 6:22 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
Except.
If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
been built for 6.1 (effectively still in QA), plus some post 6.1 updates
(Again, still in QA).
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of systems.
I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
Am I receiving security updates via 'yum update', which as far as I can
tell hasn't installed any updates for
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
systems.
I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
Am I receiving security updates via 'yum update', which as
On 10/21/2011 08:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
systems.
I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
Am I
On 10/21/2011 9:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
systems.
I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
Am I receiving
On 10/21/2011 08:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
systems.
I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
Am I
Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
Read this:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
Read this:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
___
Thanks. I see that.
On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
Read this:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:24, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
However, if I install whatever latest version of an operating system
distribution. I expect to be able to run something that will give me
stable security-updates for that distribution.
It
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
snip
However, if I install whatever latest version of an operating system
distribution. I expect to be able to run
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
If not, what do I need to do to get security updates?
These are not production systems, but I don't want to break anything
unless it's broken already (i.e. security vulnerabilities and bug fixes).
I think it is best to
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
were updates. All of a sudden, there are *no* updates for the 6.0 point
release, which is a major change in what everyone
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
There is nothing BETA about the CR repo ... it is the CR repo.
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
were updates. All of a
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
were updates. All of a sudden, there are *no* updates for
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
were updates.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Yes, and NOW the release process is MUCH harder. []
Thanks for that explanation. I knew that Red Hat's internal
development process was throwing wrenches in the CentOS build system,
but I hadn't realized how systemic and legally complicated the
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
... and they have completely changed their Authorized Use Policy so
that we
On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
... and they have completely
On 10/21/11 10:20 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
... and they
Thanks, that is the part I was looking for also...I wish thee was someway
that Redhat would work with folks to not make it so difficult, I realize
that the original intent was to make it harder for Oracle and the likes but
the end up hurting the community more than they hurt the big guys...bummer
On 10/21/11 10:25 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
is only accessible via RHN and they do
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Gary Greene
ggre...@minervanetworks.com wrote:
I've never quite understood how anything containing any GPL-covered
code could have any redistribution/use restrictions added.
Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is OK, so we are SOL.
I'd rather get
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right
now, you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months,
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
They have created an optional channel in several of those
groupings that is only accessible via RHN and they do not
put those RPMS
On 10/21/2011 12:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Gary Greene
ggre...@minervanetworks.com wrote:
I've never quite understood how anything containing any GPL-covered
code could have any redistribution/use restrictions added.
Trust me ... the Linux Foundation
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Gary Greene wrote:
Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is OK, so we are SOL.
I'd rather get the opinion of the FSF (those whom wrote the
license) instead of LF, as they don't matter as much,
really.
Feel free to approach whoever you wish on your own account
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote:
I've never quite understood how anything containing any
GPL-covered code could have any redistribution/use
restrictions added.
The GPL, v2, only requires access to sources where one is
providing binaries
Where do you
On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right
now, you updated to
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
You'd need a copyright owner to initiate legal action. And the FSF
generally is more concerned about source availability although
binaries are clearly derived from source and covered by the same
copyright, and I can't
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
snip
Now, for version 6, they have:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote:
snip
Now, for version 6, they have:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
It has been a while since I saw any update...
I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
twitter.com/centos6 nothing there,
went to the qa calendar stuff nothing there.
Last I saw was something in September saying all
RPM's are built and
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
