Geoff Galitz wrote:
The aim was to create platform, not
strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
project has been started but never really haven't happened.
I'll go on the record as being
enough is enough already.
can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian
FOTESCU aka beranger...@yahoo.ca
please?
not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language behavior
are more than inappropriate for such a professional
The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or
was that supposed to be in the past tense?
-geoff
-
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like
...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages... or any
other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of
breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason,
On 07/04/2009 08:07 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or
was that supposed to be in the past tense?
No, CentOS has nothing to do with caos in quite a few years now
the end of this circle for me
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slidern...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Didi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
(info offered
Karanbir Singh wrote:
also, I completely lost interest in this thread when it went into
ranting lands, guess it might be worth catching up on.
not really. :-/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like
...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages... or any
other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of
breaking compatibility with RH,
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescubo...@yahoo.com wrote:
From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
displaying their
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word troll
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb to troll
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers
to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly
critical
Didi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescubo...@yahoo.com wrote:
From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
displaying
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word troll
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb to troll
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers
to assert that any
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:37:17AM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word troll
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb to troll
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slidern...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Didi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
(info offered by NedSlider)
Have a look at the time the photo was taken. The
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slidern...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
Didi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagiamy...@gmail.com wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
(info offered by NedSlider)
Have a look at the time the photo
enough is enough already.
can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian
FOTESCU aka beranger...@yahoo.ca
please?
not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language behavior
are more than inappropriate for such a professional atmosphere that
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the Cento's team would have
responded in a timely matter to the original yes/no question of this thread,
maybe this thread wouldn't have deviated to the point at which is at.
Something definitely got lost in the translation, but in the
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the
Cento's team would have responded in a timely matter to the
original yes/no question of this thread,
... and an allegedly 'yes or no' question can take three and a
half 24 line screens to
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement
like ...latest release has many up-to-date desktop
packages...
ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do
as well; and the CentOS project [and the upstream] document
- Original Message
From: R P Herrold herr...@centos.org
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 8:51:35 PM
Subject: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescubo...@yahoo.com wrote:
From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
displaying their affiliation with CentOS.
Dag Wieers, the well-known maintainer of a once
Les Mikesell wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
How it interacts with epel I don't really care about, but it should not
update vendor packages, and anything that requires an updated vendor
package will be broken on yum configurations that protect the base install.
I think you've confused
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 06:36:23PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
... (trimmed)
I can see that RF has a slightly newer version of
python-imaging-1.1.6-2.el5.rf.i386
... (deleted R-C rant) ...
I don't find updating something like python acceptable.
Michael,
Ron Loftin wrote:
As a really radical suggestion, perhaps you should consider moving this
discussion to the rpmforge mail list, since it seems that most of your
issues are focused on that repository. You might even find a larger
collection of viewpoints there.
no, trolling works much better
Linux Advocate napsal(a):
david, could u tell me how to build frm SRPMS. i m not good in this area and
would like to improve.
As usual wiki is the good place to start from:
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
I personally use the Mock:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock
Ned Slider napsal(a):
Bingo! That's the whole point Russ - members of the Community don't know
what's going on with *their* Community Enterprise OS because there is no
dissemination of information.
What I *do* know is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before
that 4.7 took ~7 weeks.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious
...
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated
-- Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:43:41PM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have
seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do
deserve it.
Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on
several occasions something that would equate
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
than the current 10 week release lag),
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing
dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build.
But you never give me an example of one.
On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the
SRPM, but the
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
The audacious package is willing to wait that long :)
Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, i.e. in my repo.
And was your patch rejected from the places you are complaining about?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
The audacious package is willing to wait that long
:)
Nope, because I've built it *for myself*,
i.e. in my repo.
And was your patch rejected from the places you are
complaining about?
There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch.
When you build audacious from SPEC + tarball, it
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
The audacious package is willing to wait that long
:)
Nope, because I've built it *for myself*,
i.e. in my repo.
And was your patch rejected from the places you are
complaining about?
There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing
dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
Sure, but when you started that thread you didn't mention your problem
with the comix package. I was still confused why you would talk about
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dag Wieersd...@wieers.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
What was the problem with audacious again ?
snip
Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too
much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said
Buildlogs are available from:
http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue.
So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to have been done
by Dries, and that it was
I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
who has expressed an interest in audacious
(whatever it is does) for CentOS during these several
days of rant.
I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
(whoever you are do) to have suggested popularity as
a required raison
As a really radical suggestion, perhaps you should consider moving this
discussion to the rpmforge mail list, since it seems that most of your
issues are focused on that repository. You might even find a larger
collection of viewpoints there.
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:32 -0700, Radu-Cristian
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
- audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins)
- comix SRPM does not rebuild
That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)
But this is only because I am not crazy
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
Buildlogs are available from:
http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue.
So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to have been done
Michael A. Peters wrote:
How it interacts with epel I don't really care about, but it should not
update vendor packages, and anything that requires an updated vendor
package will be broken on yum configurations that protect the base install.
I think you've confused rpmforge with something
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
The difference is that you can only install one distribution, but you can
install tons of incompatible repositories.
And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which is what Fedora and
EPEL wants you to believe) is just debunked by yourself above :-)
The
The aim was to create platform, not
strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
project has been started but never really haven't happened.
I'll go on the record as being willing to volunteer to help
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU a écrit :
(And I won't mention the quality of Ubuntu's packages.)
As for TUV, they decided they can only support ~2.5k packages,
regardless of the fact that they're the #1 Linux company.
How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all started with a
group of 30
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all started with a
group of 30 odd Debian developers.
Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution: 150 paid full time
developers only to maintain the distro.
As for Red Hat, according to recent news,
On 30 Jun 2009, at 9:46 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
The aim was to create platform, not
strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
project has been started but never really haven't happened.
I'll go
David Hrbác a écrit :
Niki,
that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... more than 1
RPMs...
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I
Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
not to be rude but back to the core of the original question:
is is safe to assume that future releases of Centos will remain a
built from publicly available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent
North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I use VLC and Audacity at the
same time). And if a package is not in RPMForge (which
Geoff Galitz napsal(a):
I'll go on the record as being willing to volunteer to help with a
distribution/version neutral repo. Such a thing would benefit my business.
Is anyone currently leading this project?
The project is to be found here http://rpmrepo.org/ I guess there's no
leadership
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:51:54PM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
led to the great compiler we have today. The same
would hold for any large project (the kernel, firefox, etc.)
And... are you happy with the quality of the huge $h1t which
is Firefox? Because I am not.
Firefox was
Hi all,
I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that had I not given EPEL a
very low
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
I am still waiting for it. I am willing to give you commit
access to fix all the things that irritate you. I offered
the same to others.
Actually, how do we know what builds and validates in RF and
what doesn't?
You should rather trigger
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Linux Advocate wrote:
beranger...@yahoo.com... , u have a problem with dag...and now it looks like
u have a problem with linus torvalds himself u talk abt the need for
cooperation,etc but you apparently dont get that 'you have to give
respect to get respect'
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
The difference is that you can only install one distribution, but you can
install tons of incompatible repositories.
And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which is what Fedora and
EPEL wants you to believe) is just
Marcus Moeller wrote:
Hi all,
I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that had I not
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbác( wrote:
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I use VLC and Audacity at the
same time). And
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Linux Advocate wrote:
beranger...@yahoo.com... , u have a problem with dag...and now it looks
like u have a problem with linus torvalds himself u talk abt the need
for cooperation,etc but you apparently dont get that 'you have to give
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
I am all for a solution, but unless it already works I would not call it a
solution, but a short-term (and possibly long-term) risk.
I hasn't been working and I dare to say not because the community... So
I don't see any way how can contrib work after those years. :o(
Ned Slider napsal(a):
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro at present),
why doesn't everyone do as Dag suggested, and adopt a handful of
packages and help maintain them at rpmforge for the benefit
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
The biggest problem for me is that we do not have the infrastructure in
RPMforge. I still need to build the x86 and x86_64 stuff, Fabian does
the PPC packages.
Yes, we don't. As for me, there's no time and need to reinvent the
wheel. There are many etalons to look at
So we have centosplus and extras which are the repos with
access denied for packages inclusion. Dag's rpmforge
which is so huge with a lot of dependencies not suitable
for testing/bleeding edge/alternative packages. So
what's the suitable repo? That's why people are going to
run own
How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all
started with a group of 30 odd Debian developers.
Yes, but when they started, they mainly rebuilt the upstream
(Debian) packages, right?
Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution:
150 paid full time developers only to
Firefox was better than Mozilla.
Nay. Only Firefox 0.9 was better than Mozilla.
Later on, bloatware won.
It's definitely worth noting that, Epiphany
Firefox popped up so quickly because they built on
Mozilla's rendering, etc.
Yes, it's easier to add bloatware on a solid open-sourced
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
at present), ...
It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case.
I wish people not in the know would not purport to
He wants me to do some things for him for free
(unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire).
Not for *me*!!!
It's only a matter of perception. I normally don't like
when a SRPM doesn't build, and I believe that until it's
fixed, it should either be removed (alongside with the
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
But I *do* have a problem with RPM Fusion and Karanbir's repo, because
they keep packages in testing even if nothing happens (they could stay
there until 2014, right?).
oh _+please+_ troll elsewhere .. no-one forces you to use any
third
What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious
...
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated
-- Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 for package: audacious
...
-- Missing Dependency:
On 06/29/2009 08:06 PM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
The whole point of the question is to make sure that Centos will remain 100%
binary compatible with PNAELV, at least in terms of package version. This
does not mean that others will not have the ability to break this 100% binary
On 06/30/2009 12:10 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
There was a time where CentOS contrib repo has been announced. It was
meant to be a package source for 'community-contributed' packages. So
why not just merge stable RPMForge packages over there and start a
'semi-official' CentOS orientated
On 06/30/2009 11:03 AM, David Hrbác( wrote:
The project is to be found here http://rpmrepo.org/ I guess there's no
leadership right now.
rpmrepo.org suffered from a too-many-cooks and everyone wanting to
workout what the other guys were upto before deciding to do much - there
were a few
On 06/30/2009 09:22 AM, David Hrbác( wrote:
that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... more than 1
RPMs... Not more that unpaid 40 people involved, actively committing
only about 5 people...
I have much respect for the PLD guys, they have a fantastic system in
place, and I think
On 06/30/2009 03:46 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
We even have centos.karan.org, with all the packages for 5 in...
testing, since 2007. Oh boy.
yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the word 'testing'
means something, there is a reason why those packages are there in
yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the
word 'testing' means something, there is a reason why
those packages are there in 'testing' - people who
dont know what they are doing are recommended to
NOT use them.
Karanbir, I've always 'appreciated' you being such a 'nice'
On 06/30/2009 05:05 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
OTOH, it's such an accomplishment to have *all* the packages
in testing since 2007 and none of them passing the QA
requirements...
Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages in c.k.o ? Also,
why are you ignoring what has already
Thanks
- Original Message
From: Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:46:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On 06/29/2009 08:06 PM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
The whole point
Niki, could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and
would like to learn this.
- Original Message
From: Niki Kovacs cont...@kikinovak.net
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment
david, could u tell me how to build frm SRPMS. i m not good in this area and
would like to improve.
- Original Message
From: David Hrbác( hrbac.c...@seznam.cz
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:52:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 14:18, Linux Advocatelinuxhous...@yahoo.com wrote:
could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and would
like to learn this.
This article in the Wiki should get you going...
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
HTH,
Filipe
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro at present),
why doesn't everyone do as Dag suggested, and adopt a handful of
packages and help maintain them at rpmforge for the benefit of everyone.
@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
David Hrbác a écrit :
Niki,
that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... more than 1
RPMs...
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy
Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages
in c.k.o ?
I didn't. But since you say that there is a reason for
them to be in testing, I then assumed the reason was
testing. But then, the activity usually called testing
is part of a process usually called Quality Assurance.
But hey,
- Original Message
From: Radu-Cristian FOTESCU beranger...@yahoo.ca
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:59:42 PM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages
in c.k.o ?
I
I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have
seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do
deserve it.
Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on
several occasions something that would equate RTFM,
only it was put in such an offensive way that even
myself, as an
R P Herrold wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
at present), ...
It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case.
Then we disagree. Others can look
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ned Slidern...@unixmail.co.uk wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
at present), ...
It may be
Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather
see this than effort diluted by taking on a
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 00:10 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
at present), ...
It may be clear to
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't
under 5.3,then this package is broekn.
Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I
will accept scripts/tools that can verify this.
I don't think any other repository is
even doing this though.
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
RPMRepo is the best proof that collaboration is close to impossible.
Collaboration isn't exactly the point - in fact the differences are a good
thing. There are legitimate reasons (besides the obvious differences of
opinions) for incompatibly different versions
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
As I said, and as everyone on this list knows:
KB is not a person to talk with. Usually, KB would
throw offensive assertion to people. No matter
what KB would say, and no matter how important is
KB to the CentOS project, a quick search through
the centos ML
great. thanx.
- Original Message
From: Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com
could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and
would like to learn this.
Simple form (should work with most packages):
# rpmbuild --rebuild package-version-release.srpm
'man
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 14:18, Linux Advocatewrote:
could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and would
like to learn this.
This article in the Wiki should get you going...
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
HTH,
Filipe
thanx.
] Dag's comment at linuxtag
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
RPMRepo is the best proof that collaboration is close to impossible.
Collaboration isn't exactly the point - in fact the differences are a good
thing. There are legitimate reasons (besides the obvious differences of
opinions
From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
displaying their affiliation with CentOS.
Dag Wieers, the well-known maintainer of a once very popular RPM
repository, greeted me with a big smile: Do you know CentOS?
A quick look at http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=centos
shows that a great majority of the packages are not even
close to being up-to-date, and that is a good thing for
those us of who care more about stability than eyecandy.
That can't be other way. For instance, you can't
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
OTOH, Dag is in a funny position: he's the main maintainer of RPMforge,
which has 2 main issues:
(1) It's broken, at least partially. Try install audacious for one.
(2) It's incompatible with EPEL. Try install MPlayer and VLC with EPEL
enabled.
I don't like
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
