Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 willing to volunteer to help with a distribution/version neutral repo. Such a thing would benefit my business. Is anyone currently leading this project? - Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos rpmforge..:) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 has been developed and become a long term testimony at centos.org i support this motion. i think karanbir or whoever is the admin should step in. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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/ http://german-way.com/blog/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives. First of all, when I said this, I was no longer part of the CentOS team. Secondly, I didn't say that literally, but I don't object to the wording. For desktop use we do have up-to-date desktop packages. Not firefox 3.5 (wasn't released then) but a recent Network Manager, pidgin, firefox. So I wasn't lying. If that means that people will look for alternatives, that's fine. I would be lying if I said that we only had old desktop applications, wouldn't I ? CentOS already covers the server market, it doesn't need a push there. But a lot of people see CentOS as a pure server OS. Which I am trying to change by telling people how CentOS is perfect for the desktop for 99% of the people. I am leaving out the 1% of people that want to have the latest and greatest in everything, that are developers, or have religious technology preference. If Linux would have 100 million users right now, it wouldn't cover the potential 1% of the whole market if you look at a desktop-using population. Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future: It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future. http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/ This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised. You read of course what you want to read. And Red Hat is right, they do not target the _consumer_ market. Which is fair. There is little money to be made in the consumer market (not if you don't have a lot of money/effort going to support etc...) But they do target the Enterprise desktop market and therefor they do have a desktop product that works fine for what it is. And most people don't need more than that. (I certainly don't) So don't make the mistake that so many others have made, which is that Red Hat is not interested in the Desktop. They are very much interested, that is partly why they bought Qumranet, and why they spend so much money on Desktop related development in Fedora. Red Hat sees the desktop as the next step in revenue, but not in the consumer market. They see it in the enterprise market. That's crystal clear for me. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 - and thats not going to change. CentOS is a completely independent project. also, I completely lost interest in this thread when it went into ranting lands, guess it might be worth catching up on. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522...@icq ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
the end of this circle for me ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 by NedSlider) Have a look at the time the photo was taken. The booth only opened at 10 and the photo was taken before. Maybe subscribe to the promo list where this was discussed. Funny that such accusations are coming out of the community. Cheers Didi Hi Didi, I believe it was said as a joke and posted here to somewhat lighten the tone of this thread :) It was indeed my humble effort. But this thread made such a wrong turn that jokes do not seem to work / help as intended. :-( Hey, I am sorry. I have just already received personal comments on this and I automatically assumed this was a continuation of these. And reading the threads the tone is becoming more and more insulting. I just didn't think someone would be funny. Sad in a way where the list is going. But rereading it now, I should have noticed. I assume it was just my personal bias. But nice effort :) Cheers Didi Oh well. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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, for whatever reason, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives. First of all, when I said this, I was no longer part of the CentOS team. Secondly, I didn't say that literally, but I don't object to the wording. For desktop use we do have up-to-date desktop packages. Not firefox 3.5 (wasn't released then) but a recent Network Manager, pidgin, firefox. So I wasn't lying. If that means that people will look for alternatives, that's fine. I would be lying if I said that we only had old desktop applications, wouldn't I ? CentOS already covers the server market, it doesn't need a push there. But a lot of people see CentOS as a pure server OS. Which I am trying to change by telling people how CentOS is perfect for the desktop for 99% of the people. I am leaving out the 1% of people that want to have the latest and greatest in everything, that are developers, or have religious technology preference. If Linux would have 100 million users right now, it wouldn't cover the potential 1% of the whole market if you look at a desktop-using population. Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future: It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future. http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/ This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised. You read of course what you want to read. And Red Hat is right, they do not target the _consumer_ market. Which is fair. There is little money to be made in the consumer market (not if you don't have a lot of money/effort going to support etc...) But they do target the Enterprise desktop market and therefor they do have a desktop product that works fine for what it is. And most people don't need more than that. (I certainly don't) So don't make the mistake that so many others have made, which is that Red Hat is not interested in the Desktop. They are very much interested, that is partly why they bought Qumranet, and why they spend so much money on Desktop related development in Fedora. Red Hat sees the desktop as the next step in revenue, but not in the consumer market. They see it in the enterprise market. That's crystal clear for me. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Just for the record: I use CentOS due to the pedigree of the source RPMs, the fact that it will be supported for many years with patches AND that it works fine as a desktop / work station and even laptop OS. I run five servers, two laptops and two workstations all with CentOS (use plus for the non servers). I play videos, and music as well as perform all my business functions reliably month after month. Keep up the great work. I use all the CentOS repos, rpmforge and EPEL plus one or two others for very specific needs. If the additional repos break CentOS I back out and look elsewhere. Sure it takes some time and tender loving care to get it all working but the important thing is IT DOES! - RELIABLY month after month. I once upon a time I used others and got so tired of having to do rebuilds of my machine every year or so to stay supported. Life is too short - I like to use hardware for four+ years and want the OS to match. Thanks team - this user sure appreciates your efforts and I am trying to come up to speed so I can be of more help to the project. Do not let those that rant and rave and get nasty put you off. We recognize the time and effort it takes to make good stuff happen. Appreciated - Rob begin:vcard fn:Rob Kampen n:Kampen;Rob email;internet:rkam...@kampensonline.com tel;work:407-896-9556 x6344 tel;fax:407-896-7607 tel;home:407-876-4854 tel;cell:407-341-3815 version:2.1 end:vcard ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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? When I introduced myself, he looked somewhat disappointed: Oh, so you know CentOS... Still, we found a lot to talk about. Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system, explained Dag, but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). He asserted: CentOS can be a perfect system for those who need long-term stability and who don't want to take frequent and potentially risky upgrade paths. A serious doubt has been raised about the credibility of that story. Did the reporter indeed meet Dag at the CentOS booth? Or was it at a nearby pub? Hahah. I was there when they where talking and I can confirm that it was at the booth and everyone was sober. 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 booth only opened at 10 and the photo was taken before. Maybe subscribe to the promo list where this was discussed. Funny that such accusations are coming out of the community. Cheers Didi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 to them is not a legitimate one, but a wicked attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe trolling was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself! Sincerely, I believe that whoever is accusing *anyone* of trolling is a stupid asshole. Since when critical conversation is not politically correct and even denied in the era of the hyper-inflated, arrogant Linux and BSD developers and users? R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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? When I introduced myself, he looked somewhat disappointed: Oh, so you know CentOS... Still, we found a lot to talk about. Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system, explained Dag, but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). He asserted: CentOS can be a perfect system for those who need long-term stability and who don't want to take frequent and potentially risky upgrade paths. A serious doubt has been raised about the credibility of that story. Did the reporter indeed meet Dag at the CentOS booth? Or was it at a nearby pub? Hahah. I was there when they where talking and I can confirm that it was at the booth and everyone was sober. 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 booth only opened at 10 and the photo was taken before. Maybe subscribe to the promo list where this was discussed. Funny that such accusations are coming out of the community. Cheers Didi Hi Didi, I believe it was said as a joke and posted here to somewhat lighten the tone of this thread :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a legitimate one, but a wicked attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe trolling was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself! Sincerely, I believe that whoever is accusing *anyone* of trolling is a stupid asshole. Since when critical conversation is not politically correct and even denied in the era of the hyper-inflated, arrogant Linux and BSD developers and users? R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Over the line now!! Please stop! begin:vcard fn:Rob Kampen n:Kampen;Rob email;internet:rkam...@kampensonline.com tel;work:407-896-9556 x6344 tel;fax:407-896-7607 tel;home:407-876-4854 tel;cell:407-341-3815 version:2.1 end:vcard ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 developers to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a legitimate one, but a wicked attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe trolling was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself! This excerpt is more informed: gnome-dictionary --look-up troll Troll Troll, v. t. [imp. p. p. Trolled; p. pr. vb. n. Trolling.] [OE. trollen to roll, F. tr[^o]ler, Of. troller to drag about, to ramble; probably of Teutonic origin; cf. G. trollen to roll, ramble, sich trollen to be gone; or perhaps for trotler, fr. F. trotter to trot (cf. Trot.). Cf. Trawl.] Mihai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 booth only opened at 10 and the photo was taken before. Maybe subscribe to the promo list where this was discussed. Funny that such accusations are coming out of the community. Cheers Didi Hi Didi, I believe it was said as a joke and posted here to somewhat lighten the tone of this thread :) It was indeed my humble effort. But this thread made such a wrong turn that jokes do not seem to work / help as intended. :-( Oh well. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 was taken. The booth only opened at 10 and the photo was taken before. Maybe subscribe to the promo list where this was discussed. Funny that such accusations are coming out of the community. Cheers Didi Hi Didi, I believe it was said as a joke and posted here to somewhat lighten the tone of this thread :) It was indeed my humble effort. But this thread made such a wrong turn that jokes do not seem to work / help as intended. :-( Oh well. don't worry Akemi, I'm sure most people understood it as a joke - it certainly pulled a smile from me ;-) and I wouldn't try to lighten this thread, just let it die: trolls should be left to howl by themselves... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 has been developed and become a long term testimony at centos.org it is most difficult, yet i will resist any further comment at this time. - rh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 future, if someone speaks on the behalf of Centos, please make sure that the information remains consistent with Centos' goals. And the goal as far as I can tell is very simple... 100% RH compatibility. Please warn us in advance the moment Centos plans to break 100% RH compatibility. RC, check the original post again, and then your answer. You actually ignore the second half of what you quote, 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 you probably didn't even bother to read the rest of the message: From the comment ...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)... 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 with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)., AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository?? and then you hijack the thread and start talking about version numbers, Dag, repositories, and suitable distros. NO... Dag, suitability, version numbers, and repositories were not the question. Again, the question, which has a rather simple YES/NO answer, and which only someone from the Centos team could answer(and they already did a couple of days ago): 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 with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)., AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository??? The quoted staff is from Centos website. And if you wonder why I asked this question, re-read the orginal post to put the question into context. bn ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
- 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 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 these matters in release notes as to the up-to-date changes done. Upstream decided on most of them, or we made a minimal delta to get the packageset to stabilize. So what? The project cannot cater to people who won't read nor pay attention. Russ, this was about a comment about up-to-date desktop packages, not a comment about up-to-date changes. Just because the release notes contains up-to-date changes, it doesn't necessarily mean that the up-to-date xxx package is installed. But maybe I wrong, please point to one current up-to-date package in Centos or RH for that matter. And by up-to-date package I don't mean a stable, but un-supported package (ie PHP) I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives. 'a lot?' ... we disagree Are you disagreeing with the number (a lot) of users who use Centos because they need/want an RH clone, or/and are you disagreeing with the number (a lot) of users who would leave Centos if Centos breaks RH compatibility? It should be easy to find out. Conduct a poll. That said: Choice is good -- keeping an eye on options is good. So what? Choice is good and somtimes overrated, but stability is always better. Straining at gnats and worrying about scope creep by CentOS in 'base' and 'updates' is a wasted effort, so long as one remains in those archives. As I said before, 'no-one forces you to use any third party repository' Thank you, and all the other Centos members for clarifying this... Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system, explained Dag, but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). And keep up the good work. bn ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 very popular RPM repository, greeted me with a big smile: Do you know CentOS? When I introduced myself, he looked somewhat disappointed: Oh, so you know CentOS... Still, we found a lot to talk about. Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system, explained Dag, but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). He asserted: CentOS can be a perfect system for those who need long-term stability and who don't want to take frequent and potentially risky upgrade paths. A serious doubt has been raised about the credibility of that story. Did the reporter indeed meet Dag at the CentOS booth? Or was it at a nearby pub? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg (info offered by NedSlider) Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 rpmforge with something else. If you are happy with a base install you probably shouldn't be using it. I only use rpmforge for a few packages, I use priorities and it is set to lowest. I think my nvidia driver is from them, and one dependency I need for xine non-free (private package) I think is from them. I use to maintain my own nvidia driver via the old kmod rebuild every update method but their packaging was superior. I don't know what rpmforge has in general, I was just replying to the comment about needing to update python in order to get a package to build. Python really should not be updated. Parallel install OK, but updating the system python is asking for a fubar system. If rpmforge does not do that, then it clearly isn't an issue. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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, it's python-imaging, a python module, not python. ...(deleted since discussion started on wrong assumption)... Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xBEFA581B pgpTFWx0pFXl6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 on high volume lists like this one. I suspect poor R-C would be howling to the moon on the rf list... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 https://fedorahosted.org/mock/ There is also the Koji project, but it's too big to start with: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Koji Regards, David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps this is where we disagree above. 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 contrib repo. Ned, thank you for these words! David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 for package: audacious ... -- Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency. You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one. We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine. I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they don't build! When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-( Care to give an example ? Then I can point you to the buildlog and you might be able to find the cause of your problem by comparing ? Without an example, or without an error of why it does not build I cannot even try to fix it. Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us? When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-( The audacious package is willing to wait that long :) 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. Now you're wrong. You must be wrong. Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2-5.3. This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build. Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right? Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too. The plugins belong to another package actually. I don't know what is wrong with it, but there are buildlogs. I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4. That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS FOR EL5, AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3. You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!! I never claimed any compatibility, no waranty, if it breaks you can provide me a patch. Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really. Can you please list them. I like statistics. I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.) Still you complain about lots of packages that fail to rebuild, but if I ask what these are I only get 2 items: - 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 :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 see this than effort diluted by taking on a contrib repo. Right: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png After all, I love (some) charts from time to time. I'd be very interested to have a similar chart of the average delay for updates plotted in time. Not because I think it shows something fantastic, but rather to give us a better target to meet. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 RTFM, only it was put in such an offensive way that even myself, as an external reader, I felt compassion for the poor user who was asking an innocent question just to be slapped over the face. I have no idea what your deal is though with going after anyone and everybody. Do you just love attacking people in gerernal? Of course. I also like killing kittens and sodomizing kids. If telling to someone that there are issues with his repo (that was RPMforge and Dag is #1 when comes to RF) is an attack, then your world and my world are different, and *your* world is broken. Basically, I have been answered that I cannot ask for consistency for something that's free unless I help fixing the issues. Fair enough. But then, if mentioning that KB's repo for EL5 is still having *everything* in testing (the repo for EL4 is not in testing, and it even wasn't in testing a few years ago when I was using it) is still an attack... ...whereas KB's *offending* and *despising* answer (because *this* is how he usually replies!) basically says that I am an idiot who shouldn't use his repo (only that he wasn't using these exact words, so he's technically politically correct in the way he's telling people that they're morons that should shut the fsck up) is not an attack, huh? Well, then raise a statue to the beloved KB, because I'm gonna shut the fuck up. This is not a community, and I know of several people who use ScientificLinux not because it's better, but because on their mailing list, their developers *don't* imply that people are morons when they spit an answer to the list. But now, you're right: should I have the chance to meet KB in person, I'd punch him in the face with an infinite pleasure. Perhaps all boils down to How To Ask Questions The Smart Way: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Mihai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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), and I would much rather see this than effort diluted by taking on a contrib repo. Right: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png After all, I love (some) charts from time to time. I'd be very interested to have a similar chart of the average delay for updates plotted in time. Not because I think it shows something fantastic, but rather to give us a better target to meet. Same here. Maybe something along the lines of the 'days at risk' reports Mark Cox produces for RHEL: http://www.awe.com/mark/blog/ http://www.awe.com/mark/blog/2009012017.html ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 SPEC+tarball. Which don't build. When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-( Care to give an example ? Then I can point you to the buildlog and you might be able to find the cause of your problem by comparing ? Comix, for God's sake. The audacious package is willing to wait that long :) Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, i.e. in my repo. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all. Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really. Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it. - 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 enough to try 7,600 packages! Cheers, R-C __ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 spits out audacious + audacious_plugins, both as RPMs and as SRPMs (actually, it spits around 15 plugins RPMs). RPMforge misses the plugins, that's all. Probably just triggering a rebuild would fix it all. Instead of talking for ages about patches, what builds and what doesn't, and why better services would need pay etc. maybe someone (Dag?) could have triggered the rebuild of audacious for 100 times in the meantime. Truly yours, R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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. When you build audacious from SPEC + tarball, it spits out audacious + audacious_plugins, both as RPMs and as SRPMs (actually, it spits around 15 plugins RPMs). RPMforge misses the plugins, that's all. Probably just triggering a rebuild would fix it all. Instead of talking for ages about patches, what builds and what doesn't, and why better services would need pay etc. maybe someone (Dag?) could have triggered the rebuild of audacious for 100 times in the meantime. Truly yours, R-C Looking at this from yet another angle, 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. By some weird coincidence, you purport to have a working version. Bully for you! You allegedly have what you want. Most list members here seem to have what they want. I absolutely, definitely, positively, most assuredly have what I want and am free of the crap that I don't want, which would include audacious. **And any half-baked, half-tested LG package.** With so much contentment floating around, it surely makes you look like a 33rd Degree Horse's Ass to continue ranting about the damn thing, in the process, greatly diminishing any stature that has accumulated here deriving from your technical achievements. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 SRPMs that do not build when audacious was not having this problem. 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 SPEC+tarball. Which don't build. Buildlogs are available from: http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/ I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all. That's not how Open Source works. I do something properly so that it works well for me. And I provide it hoping that people that have some other use (or expectations) can help me as well. You have a different expectation. Either you can help the project, or you use it as-is, or you don't use it. For me everyone of those is fine. You choose door 2 and I accept. Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really. Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it. That's not the point. If you have problem X with Ubuntu, your only guarantee to see it fixed is by paying Canonical. In any other case you can report it or fix it yourself. None of these options guarantee that it will be fixed in Ubuntu. But fixing it yourself has the highest probability. - 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 enough to try 7,600 packages! Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well. I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken. You see the difference :) Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages. Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? +1 Very easy to criticize people who are volunteering their time and doing their best. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 successful in April 2009. I am pretty much sure I can prove it *won't* compile on any EL5 clone with the officially available versions of: BuildRequires: python, python-imaging, pygtk2-devel I am not sure what mushrooms were installed on the build machine. It *doesn't* build with: pygtk2-devel-2.10.1-12.el5.i386 python-imaging-devel-1.1.5-5.el5.i386 Which is whatever EL5 has. I can see that RF has a slightly newer version of python-imaging-1.1.6-2.el5.rf.i386 but as long as the SPEC file doesn't require a newer version than 1.1.5, nor does the tarball's Makefile, I *don't* pull updates from RF. Maybe I should have did it, but then the SPEC is incomplete and it assumes that whatever version is OK when it's not. I'll check this in a couple of days. OTOH, frankly, I should rather find some time (which I don't have) to fscking build my own VLC and MPlayer and gstreamer-* so I won't need RPMforge in the future. Frankly, I hate huge repos. Yes, even Debian's. Whatever is huge can't be maintained with the current mindset of the FLOSS people. R-C __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 d'être. Maybe we should make a poll: from the 8,614 RPM files RPMforge are, I am pretty much sure you wouldn't find in a couple of days more than 1 person to express interest in *half* of them. Should half of them be dropped? R-C __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 FOTESCU wrote: 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 d'être. Maybe we should make a poll: from the 8,614 RPM files RPMforge are, I am pretty much sure you wouldn't find in a couple of days more than 1 person to express interest in *half* of them. Should half of them be dropped? R-C __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Ron Loftin relof...@twcny.rr.com God, root, what is difference ? Piter from UserFriendly ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 enough to try 7,600 packages! Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well. I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken. You see the difference :) Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages. Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point. Now that I read this again, you only proved that 1 is broken, the other simply doesn't build for you. I have the proof it build for me :) Maybe the BuildRequires are incorrect, because I work with static buildroots, not dynamic ones. And as a consequence my BuildRequires could be insufficient. (Doubtful because it was made by Dries) Maybe the BuildRequires doesn't say exactly what version it needs. Because doing that would mean you have to go and see what the lowest version is with which is works. Which is time-consuming. (We do build from the same SPEC file for RHEL2, RH7, RH9, RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5) But that doesn't mean it is broken. It is certainly sub-optimal, and if you report such cases we do fix them. Imagine that we would do exactly as you say, even then Radu-Christian² may state on this list with a lot of fanfare that certain packages we ship may not function properly because our process does not include 100% functional testing and we should dedicate our time to functionally test an RPM before shipping it. And drop any packages we don't do this for. So this whole situation is not black and white. In fact if we would have unlimited time, unlimited money or unlimited contributors I would consider your suggestions seriously. But right now, any effort would be hurting some other effort and I would rather have X new packages then spending the same time to remove Y other packages. Because I think my time would simply be worth more spending on something else. You obviously do think this time would be worth spending, and have been told what is needed to get it fixed :) I don't want to be the person that denies improving what is suboptimal though. So my offer for commit access still stands, in case you'd reconsider. Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 by Dries, and that it was successful in April 2009. I am pretty much sure I can prove it *won't* compile on any EL5 clone with the officially available versions of: BuildRequires: python, python-imaging, pygtk2-devel I am not sure what mushrooms were installed on the build machine. It *doesn't* build with: pygtk2-devel-2.10.1-12.el5.i386 python-imaging-devel-1.1.5-5.el5.i386 Which is whatever EL5 has. I can see that RF has a slightly newer version of python-imaging-1.1.6-2.el5.rf.i386 but as long as the SPEC file doesn't require a newer version than 1.1.5, nor does the tarball's Makefile, I *don't* pull updates from RF. I don't find updating something like python acceptable. If I have to update the CentOS provided python, then the newer python had better be packaged as a compat package that does not conflict with the vendor supported version of python, or I don't want it. I'd run Fedora or Ubuntu if I wanted to break RHEL compatibility. If the issue of it building is the python version, then it should be backported or not included in the repo. That's my opinion. I've had enough stuff I build on my system break when an EPEL package updates the version (IE xine-lib which had several updates to version in past 6 months or so), updating versions is not something an enterprise distribution should do without careful thought, and neither should third party general repos. Third party specific repos (IE a repo dedicated to newer php) - that's a different story, and requires the user add excludes to things like base and updates yum configuration. But a general purpose repo that provides add ons should not update base packages. 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. While maybe not HFS compliant, it should be possible to build a newer python in, say, /opt/rpmforge and rpmforge (or whatever) packages that specifically need that newer python can call /opt/rpmforge/bin/python full path. Most library packages can have updates available with a simple foo-compat package name, devel packages sometimes conflict but you can usually leave the devel packages in repo and let them be installed by mock during build of software that needs the alternate library version. There are solutions for most things that do not require replacing a vendor supplied package. Hell, even gnome can be updated into /opt if you wanted newer gnome but stability of centos base (probably would take a hell of a lot of compat packages though ...) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 else. If you are happy with a base install you probably shouldn't be using it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 most important reason I still have RPMforge is because I don't want to let my users down because there is no real upgrade path (the fact that you for some reason need RPMforge is the proof). If the last user wants to turn off the light, then I know I can start doing something else ;-) PS To be honest, we could use some more people that want to help, if something is missing or not being maintained, offer to maintain it ! But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*. PS2 I discussed with christoph to set up a proper project management system that would encourage collaboration more. But we don't need more bugs, we need more people to help fix bugs, really. I'd like to say this. Dag et al have done wonderful job and I thank you for it Dag. But we (the community, fellow I know, myself) have been wanting and willing to cooperate on much huge basis, I personally feel this way. I'm talking about rpmrepo.org project. I guess Dag's interest in this project was driven by the problems with his repo too which some of you are complaining about. 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. 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 repos :o( I do it myself. I guess we need suitable platform we can use within the centos community and we need it now. Regards, David Hrbáč ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 with a distribution/version neutral repo. Such a thing would benefit my business. Is anyone currently leading this project? - Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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, they're moving from 2.000 to approximately 2.800 employees. Niki ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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, they're moving from 2.000 to approximately 2.800 employees. Niki Niki, 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... Regards, David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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? I am willing to help too, the problems is the barriers to entry on the Centos side seem quite high, there is no published guidelines on how to contribute. On the Fedora/EPEL side how ever there are published guidelines and mechanisms to allow people who want to contribute to get in. Anyway thats my too cents. - Geoff Galitz Blankenheim NRW, Germany http://www.galitz.org/ http://german-way.com/blog/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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 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 happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. So let's get this straight: huge pat on the shoulder for Dag. Thanks for your great repo ! Niki ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)., AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository??? Eh, yes. That kind of is the whole point of it. Ralph pgpvTcm8YhWQq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. Niki, I'm at the very same point. Only rpmforge and my repos user. David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 right now. David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 better than Mozilla. Epiphany is less bloated than Firefox. It's definitely worth noting that, Epiphany Firefox popped up so quickly because they built on Mozilla's rendering, etc. That's the powerful FLOS idea: get inspired and build upon previous work to suit current needs. The other very important ingredient is people putting efforts in common projects *and* even more people using the projects and giving *constructive* feedback. As for the Linux kernel, they pushed in all kind of crap. Back in 1996, I was running Linux with X in only 8 Megs of RAM! Now, I doubt I could even boot with such a memory... Things get pushed in the kernel, Xorg, etc. for a good reason, even if we fail to see it. The 2.6 kernels boot and run just fine in maybe as few as 1Mb in embedded systems and brings features and performance the 1996 version simply lacked. That's a flexibility you don't find easily elsewhere, not to mention you get it for free. Besides, the HW is getting cheaper and more efficient fast. I started programming on a 1MHz 8 bit system with 64kb of RAM, shared with the BIOS and the OS (maybe half of it left for the applications). Nowadays even a mouse driver may need much more memory. I write this email on a HW that was in the supercomputer range 10 years ago or so. But I don't know of people that double their SW developing efficiency every 18 months as Moore law goes for the HW. That's why I value so much the creative efforts pushing forward all kinds of features, whether I need them or not. These efforts give me an environment that helps my productivity and stimulate my creativity like nothing else. I fail to see why tens of micro repos are easier to maintain consistent than a large one. They're not. But at least you don't have to make people get along. And you get a source nightmare of packages that do not get along, too. This system may produce daily problems that are multiplied by tens of thousand of end users, each of them having to spend time fixing them themselves. That's a huge value trash, in my view. I was using Dag's repo since the RH7 days. Along the years I explored alternatives as ATrpms, livna, etc. but I was always very glad to come back to the richness and stability of Dag, Matthias, Dries repos. For me they made a huge and wonderful job of putting up so much sheer value with so few resources. But things change and it's a pity to see it eroded by narrow choices, regardless of the efforts still thrown at it. 7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of people to maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*... ...or scale the maintainers up. Still, 7,600 is unmaintainable. For their ~20k packages, both Debian and Ubuntu use dozens and dozens of packages. (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. I maintain that RF is way too large to be properly maintainable. Well, you just said a few lines up that enough maintainers are proven to keep up even 3x this size. Not to mention the (PLD, I think) examples someone else brought in the thread. I see this whole issue as a matter of perceiving the real value of a well maintained and vast repo. Once that is well perceived, the effort required definitely looks a lot more worth it. Mihai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 priority, it would have replaced approximately 1300 packages. Probably those whose priority is to have the latest and greatest should be using another distro (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.). The philosophy behind Enterprise Distros is stability and security and long life, not having the latest and greatest packages. 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 repository from the scratch. Best Regars Marcus ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 a global SRPMS rebuild and... whatever fails to build should go to /dev/null! What was the problem with audacious again ? Take the example of RF's Comix package. I dunno how have you built the RPM, because the SRPM won't build no matter what I tried! (I even suspected that someone has built Comix on a Fedora box, and since the binary seemed to work on CentOS/EL too...) We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine. I hate to first create an SRPM just to build the package, because RPM was great because you'd only get an SRPM if the package build fine. The Fedora people turned this the other way around when their buildsystem started from SRPMs. In my view, a repo should be consistent, and its own SRPMS should only need the official EL clone repo to build, or whatever is agreed to be a required dependency (e.g. Fusion declaratively requires EPEL, and even my tiny repo requires or *might* require EPEL for *some* dependencies). Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us? Because everytime you say what your wish is, it feels as if you are asking me to do it and I already said I don't have the time for it. 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. I am sorry to decline your offer: I don't need access to a 8,000-package repo, for later I could be accused of some breakage I might have not caused. Unless RF starts from zero (that is, by tossing whatever does not build), I am not interested: better not touch it. That's a strange position. So you complain because you see the flaws, but you only want to help when there are no flaws and in fact there is nothing to fix. Otherwise, everyone is free to rebuild from: http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/el5/SRPMS/ If it doesn't work... c'est la vie. This is the first time in my life that I've built RPMs, so... Wait. So you blame me for all these things that you don't care about for your own repository ? :-) So I can fix this by simply saying: If it doesn't work... c'est la vie. So there you have it, all is well now :) Umm... so let me get it straight (yes, I can be very mean): you *update* or *add* new packages instead of fixing the broken ones? Isn't this approach more like... Ubuntu's? If it doesn't work... c'est la vie ! We have those 400 rock solid packages, even more than that. I'd say less than 5% are in a bad shape. And audacious is probaby one of the more visible ones. But again, why do you expect me to fix them, when you have a need for it ? Because a repo should be consistent. It should be able to rebuild from its own SRPMS. Whatever doesn't fit the picture should go to /dev/null. If it doesn't work... c'est la vie !! But seriously, it's not 5%. If a SRPM doesn't build, then it's broken. This way you could very well have 20% of breakage, in real terms. Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build. I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4. You know, in the F/LOSS world the idea is that the sources be available *and* that they would build. If it doesn't work... c'est la vie !!! (I am getting used to it now :)) Then do something about it. Instead of a consumer (and complainer), become a producer (and contributor). VLC and MPlayer have so many dependencies, that my nerves just broke. Really. I wanted to build them, but then... So you are just lazy and you want me to do your dirty work, unless it is something simple, then you do it yourself. Regardless you prefer to complain :) But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*. 7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of people to maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*... It is not. Everything that works, works. The things that do not work, can be fixed. I don't want to remove things that can be fixed because recreating a package from scratch is harder than fixing one that used to work. But until now I only know that audacious does not work. And you didn't offer to fix it. I haven't heard of any other. Did you say 7600 packages failed ? Can you please list them. I like statistics. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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' 'give cooperation to get cooperation' I don't have a problem with Radu-Cristian, I think it's great that he provides me some feedback. He wants me to do some things for him for free (unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire). I want him to help me fix those things for free. So I guess we are both very alike, we want each other to fix those things for free :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 debunked by yourself above :-) The most important reason I still have RPMforge is because I don't want to let my users down because there is no real upgrade path (the fact that you for some reason need RPMforge is the proof). If the last user wants to turn off the light, then I know I can start doing something else ;-) PS To be honest, we could use some more people that want to help, if something is missing or not being maintained, offer to maintain it ! But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*. PS2 I discussed with christoph to set up a proper project management system that would encourage collaboration more. But we don't need more bugs, we need more people to help fix bugs, really. I'd like to say this. Dag et al have done wonderful job and I thank you for it Dag. But we (the community, fellow I know, myself) have been wanting and willing to cooperate on much huge basis, I personally feel this way. I'm talking about rpmrepo.org project. I guess Dag's interest in this project was driven by the problems with his repo too which some of you are complaining about. 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. Yes, I feel not happy about it. 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 repos :o( I do it myself. I guess we need suitable platform we can use within the centos community and we need it now. 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. Various people maintain SPEC files and contribute changes. But they only get pushed when Fabian or me initiate it. I don't want to sit in the middle, but without setting up new infrastructure and processes we'll continue to use what works now. It's not optimal, but it works. And we know about things that can be improved, but without people helping with QA and automate reporting problems, we just continue the way it is. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 given EPEL a very low priority, it would have replaced approximately 1300 packages. Probably those whose priority is to have the latest and greatest should be using another distro (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.). The philosophy behind Enterprise Distros is stability and security and long life, not having the latest and greatest packages. 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 repository from the scratch. Best Regars Marcus 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. If everyone who has offered help in this thread, or commented that they maintain their own repos, offered to maintain a handful of packages at rpmforge then it all adds up. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 if a package is not in RPMForge (which happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. Niki, I'm at the very same point. Only rpmforge and my repos user. David, I am happy to add you to the RPMforge subversion so you can maintain those things from within RPMforge if you like. Maybe this discussion can induce some change in how we work or who we accept. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 respect to get respect' 'give cooperation to get cooperation' I don't have a problem with Radu-Cristian, I think it's great that he provides me some feedback. He wants me to do some things for him for free (unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire). I want him to help me fix those things for free. So I guess we are both very alike, we want each other to fix those things for free :) Dag - you have a really *great* way with words :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 had I not given EPEL a very low priority, it would have replaced approximately 1300 packages. Probably those whose priority is to have the latest and greatest should be using another distro (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.). The philosophy behind Enterprise Distros is stability and security and long life, not having the latest and greatest packages. 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 repository from the scratch. 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. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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( David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 of everyone. If everyone who has offered help in this thread, or commented that they maintain their own repos, offered to maintain a handful of packages at rpmforge then it all adds up. Ned, I have written it a few hours before. RPMforge is fine. But every day work require something more which rpmforge is not able to provide within its current state. That's why I have been pointing out the rpmrepo. David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 (Suse builder, fedora infrastructure). Various people maintain SPEC files and contribute changes. But they only get pushed when Fabian or me initiate it. I don't want to sit in the middle, but without setting up new infrastructure and processes we'll continue to use what works now. I can't see any easy way to change the state too. It's not optimal, but it works. And we know about things that can be improved, but without people helping with QA and automate reporting problems, we just continue the way it is. Yes, it works and it works for me too. But everyday praxis shows that it 's been overcome. David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 repos :o( I do it myself. We even have centos.karan.org, with all the packages for 5 in... testing, since 2007. Oh boy. Too many repos, working or not, with packages frozen in testing or not, and this is exactly why I needed my tiny repo to partially fix the RPMforge-EPEL breakage with regards to the exact RF packages I am interested in, and also to add packages that couldn't go into EPEL (like a newer GIMP that would not require any other library update), etc. So no, I don't have a problem with Dag, as someone suggested. I only find partially-broken repos not Zen (bad karma, if you wish), and it's even worse when their SRPMs can't build. 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?). RPMRepo is the best proof that collaboration is close to impossible. And ElRepo is the best proof that other small repos could arise, and they have a reason to exist. But all this is on the expenses (not pecuniary, but *nervous*) of the end user, who will get confused and who might also experience system breakage. (No, priorities don't fix everything that easily.) Cheers, R-C __ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 maintain the distro. I'm not buying this number. It's too big. Compare to Pardus, which also employs a number of paid developers, it's more popular than ALT, and it still has less paid devs. But maybe they are employing 150, what do I know... As for Red Hat, according to recent news, they're moving from 2.000 to approximately 2.800 employees. And they still refuse to add even 10 or 20 packages to EL, even as a technology preview (which is unsupported, AFAIR). Cheers, R-C __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 base... Things get pushed in the kernel, Xorg, etc. for a good reason, even if we fail to see it. Hopefully, there is Someone up there who sees it. Then He will come for a second time to bring salvation to us. Hopefully, there is no HAL, no UDEV, no PulseAudio in either heaven or hell. Well, you just said a few lines up that enough maintainers are proven to keep up even 3x this size. Not to mention the (PLD, I think) examples someone else brought in the thread. I can't tell of PLD, as I have never used it. Next time someone will tell of Arch etc. etc. Not the right approach IMHO. Cheers, R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 corresponing RPMs), or be moved to a testing section. That's all. But this also means that helping to fix some issues in such a huge repo is frightening, and as long as it won't fix the RF-EPEL incompatibility, I won't see the motivation! As Dag noted, those 4 newer libs in EPEL that break VLC and MPlayer (so my repo ugly fixes the issue for *me* and for whoever likes to use those repos the way *I* do it) are not an easy issue: should anyone want to rebuild everything in RPMforge that depends on them, most likely some packages wouldn't build at all! So: RF can't be fixed, EPEL can't be fixed. To avoid the annoyance of protecting packages and whatnot, I've put in *my* repo Dag's older libs with versions higher than whatever is now in EPEL, so that EPEL won't break Dag's VLC and MPlayer. Oh, maybe this breaks some other multimedia apps from EPEL, but I am not using EPEL for multimedia, so I don't care. Maybe I am stuck with my ideas, and maybe I should be thinking outside of the box. OK, but I also know that outside of the box be dragons, so I just won't go outside of the box ;-) R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine. I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they don't build! When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-( Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us? When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-( 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. Now you're wrong. You must be wrong. Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2-5.3. This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) That's a strange position. So you complain because you see the flaws, but you only want to help when there are no flaws and in fact there is nothing to fix. That's malicious. OK, you're within your rights. Wait. So you blame me for all these things that you don't care about for your own repository ? :-) I don't say I don't care. This is my first repo ever, so it *might* be broken already. I'd say it's *likely* to be broken! Hey, I am not Dag! (The last time I checked my ID it carried a different name.) Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build. Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right? Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too. I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4. That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS FOR EL5, AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3. You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!! So you are just lazy and you want me to do your dirty work, unless it is something simple, then you do it yourself. Regardless you prefer to complain :) *My* dirty work? (Dirty?!) It is not. Everything that works, works. The things that do not work, can be fixed. #define _it_works _installs_from_RPM _runs _rebuilds_from_SRPM _rebuilds_from_SPEC_n_tarball Can you please list them. I like statistics. I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.) Cheers, R-C (C'est la vie, I know./) __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 compatibility, at least in tersm of package version, by installing more up-to-date packages from extra repositories. yes. By extra repository(ies) I mean any other repository that contains packages which are not in PNAELV. yes again, and some of these 'extra repos' might be hosted within the project itself. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 repository from the scratch. That is still very much in the pipeline, just a few things that need to get cleared out and sorted as to where and how and what process is going to be used. Its definitely in my top-5 things to get sorted for the project in the next few months. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 exceptions to that - but in a nutshell, things didnt move, at all. I would whole heartedly recommend that if there is an interest in getting rpmrepo off the ground, lets converge in the mailing list there http://rpmrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmrepo-devel and see if we can get it off the ground, once again. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 its spot on - spend the resources initially to get the process and systems right, then work on making life easy for the packagers, and see the people you can attract in. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 'testing' - people who dont know what they are doing are recommended to NOT use them. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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' person and giving so 'detailed insights' on this list, that I'm so tempted to give a politically-incorrect reply... Otherwise, I am using CentOS *despite* you being a member of the team. (Not that anyone would care.) OTOH, it's such an accomplishment to have *all* the packages in testing since 2007 and none of them passing the QA requirements... R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 been said to you about the repo and the target audience its aimed at ? - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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 compatibility, at least in tersm of package version, by installing more up-to-date packages from extra repositories. yes. By extra repository(ies) I mean any other repository that contains packages which are not in PNAELV. yes again, and some of these 'extra repos' might be hosted within the project itself. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 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 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 happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. So let's get this straight: huge pat on the shoulder for Dag. Thanks for your great repo ! Niki ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 at linuxtag 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 happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. Niki, I'm at the very same point. Only rpmforge and my repos user. David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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. If everyone who has offered help in this thread, or commented that they maintain their own repos, offered to maintain a handful of packages at rpmforge then it all adds up. good idea. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
At Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote: Niki, 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 rpmbuild' for more details. This assumes that the spec file does not need tinkering with. Generally you don't need to mess with the spec file if the SRPM is/was built for your distro. - 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 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 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 happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. So let's get this straight: huge pat on the shoulder for Dag. Thanks for your great repo ! Niki ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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, maybe I am way to stupid to match your geniality! Also, why are you ignoring what has already been said to you about the repo and the target audience its aimed at ? *What* exactly has been said and by whom? I only saw you inferring what it's *not* aimed at: people who don't like things in testing. 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 archives would show that KB is not someone easy to deal with. Probably I should stop posting to this list. I only mentioned KB's repo in the context of packages staying in testing for years. R-C __ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
- 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 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, maybe I am way to stupid to match your geniality! Also, why are you ignoring what has already been said to you about the repo and the target audience its aimed at ? *What* exactly has been said and by whom? I only saw you inferring what it's *not* aimed at: people who don't like things in testing. 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 archives would show that KB is not someone easy to deal with. Probably I should stop posting to this list. I only mentioned KB's repo in the context of packages staying in testing for years. R-C I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do deserve it. I like the way he will point you to the right place without dancing around. I have no idea what your deal is though with going after anyone and everybody. Do you just love attacking people in gerernal? my 1/2 cent opinion! Steven ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 external reader, I felt compassion for the poor user who was asking an innocent question just to be slapped over the face. I have no idea what your deal is though with going after anyone and everybody. Do you just love attacking people in gerernal? Of course. I also like killing kittens and sodomizing kids. If telling to someone that there are issues with his repo (that was RPMforge and Dag is #1 when comes to RF) is an attack, then your world and my world are different, and *your* world is broken. Basically, I have been answered that I cannot ask for consistency for something that's free unless I help fixing the issues. Fair enough. But then, if mentioning that KB's repo for EL5 is still having *everything* in testing (the repo for EL4 is not in testing, and it even wasn't in testing a few years ago when I was using it) is still an attack... ...whereas KB's *offending* and *despising* answer (because *this* is how he usually replies!) basically says that I am an idiot who shouldn't use his repo (only that he wasn't using these exact words, so he's technically politically correct in the way he's telling people that they're morons that should shut the fsck up) is not an attack, huh? Well, then raise a statue to the beloved KB, because I'm gonna shut the fuck up. This is not a community, and I know of several people who use ScientificLinux not because it's better, but because on their mailing list, their developers *don't* imply that people are morons when they spit an answer to the list. But now, you're right: should I have the chance to meet KB in person, I'd punch him in the face with an infinite pleasure. R-C __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 and judge for themselves :) I wish people not in the know would not purport to characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human trait, I guess 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. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps this is where we disagree above. 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 contrib repo. I would note that from the earliest days of RPMForge, Dag offered, and indeed granted comit rights to me, which I have not used. I find it easier to use the bug tracker, and to send emails to him ... lazy of me, I know, but again human nature in play Additionally I regularly pull, fork, and fix 'broken' RF packages [for self, or in consulting engagements], and drop the SRPM's in my personal archive to satisfy GPL source availability obligations. I've seem parts of my packagings end up elsewhere which is fine ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 clear to Ned, but is not the case. Then we disagree. Others can look and judge for themselves :) I wish people not in the know would not purport to characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human trait, I guess 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. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps this is where we disagree above. 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 contrib repo. Agree I would note that from the earliest days of RPMForge, Dag offered, and indeed granted comit rights to me, which I have not used. I find it easier to use the bug tracker, and to send emails to him ... lazy of me, I know, but again human nature in play Additionally I regularly pull, fork, and fix 'broken' RF packages [for self, or in consulting engagements], and drop the SRPM's in my personal archive to satisfy GPL source availability obligations. I've seem parts of my packagings end up elsewhere which is fine ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 contrib repo. Right: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png After all, I love (some) charts from time to time. R-C __ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 Ned, but is not the case. Then we disagree. Others can look and judge for themselves :) +1 I wish people not in the know would not purport to characterize CentOS internals, but speculation is a human trait, I guess 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. +1 What I *do* know is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before that 4.7 took ~7 weeks. We are already 6 weeks into the 4.8 release cycle with no news of how it's progressing or when a release is to be expected. Prior to this, update sets typically took ~4 weeks to release. +1 Struggling? Maybe/maybe not. Struggling within a reasonable time frame - depends on your definition of reasonable and time frame I guess. Perhaps this is where we disagree above. 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 contrib repo. +1 Steve ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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. Now you're wrong. You must be wrong. Unfortunately there has not been the binary compatibility I had hoped for. The move to FireFox 3 was an understandably necessary change that broke some stuff, but other things (especially in EPEL) have been updated that in a perfect world would have only had security patches and functionallity fixes backported to them. However, the man power just doesn't exist to maintain EPEL that way. Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2-5.3. This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works. This I agree with, to a point. Not everything needs a rebuild pushed, but certainly anything that doesn't build should have the spec fixed for new release, a mass rebuild (even if not all are actually pushed) can detect that. I suspect again though it is a matter of resources not existing. If shared libraries rarely ever changed though, then there would be less of this type of problem, but unfortunately they do change, at least in the third party repos. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 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) for incompatibly different versions of things to exist and to be wanted on different machines. The problem is not so much that these differences exist, but that the potential users (A) don't have a good way to know what the differences are and why they might want one version over another, and (B) the distro tools are not good at all at maintaining updates from a bunch of different repositories. And ElRepo is the best proof that other small repos could arise, and they have a reason to exist. But all this is on the expenses (not pecuniary, but *nervous*) of the end user, who will get confused and who might also experience system breakage. (No, priorities don't fix everything that easily.) Exactly - but it's not the repo's fault that your system is easily broken. It is that the system was designed to only give you one choice and can't even track where a package came from to get updates only from the same place. But it was unrealistic to ever believe that one choice would be enough, particularly when the base repository has policies that dictate what can be there. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 archives would show that KB is not someone easy to deal with. Not been my personal experience. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 rpmbuild' for more details. This assumes that the spec file does not need tinkering with. Generally you don't need to mess with the spec file if the SRPM is/was built for your distro. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
can dag karanbir sort of sum up this thread as to how list members can work together on improving all the additional non-redhat-originated packages from rpmforge,etc. As for radu-cristian, relax bro. As for others (myself included), lets all chill out. this thread should not evolve into personal attacks. venting happens once awhile. so lets all work together to keep making centos a good cholce for users. - Original Message From: Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:42:02 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] 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) for incompatibly different versions of things to exist and to be wanted on different machines. The problem is not so much that these differences exist, but that the potential users (A) don't have a good way to know what the differences are and why they might want one version over another, and (B) the distro tools are not good at all at maintaining updates from a bunch of different repositories. And ElRepo is the best proof that other small repos could arise, and they have a reason to exist. But all this is on the expenses (not pecuniary, but *nervous*) of the end user, who will get confused and who might also experience system breakage. (No, priorities don't fix everything that easily.) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 build GIMP 2.4 or 2.6 unless you you upgrade to a newer GTK+, which would impact on a lot of apps. 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. To workaround some of the issues and make CentOS 5.3 a suitable distro for my Acer laptop (except that I don't use wireless and I haven't even tried to), I've made my own repo here: http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/ Read the first-page text and rationale *very* carefully! It's therefore an ugly hack to allow: *** the use of the following packages from RPMforge: (1) gstreamer-plugins-bad gstreamer-plugins-ugly gstreamer-ffmpeg (2) mplayer mplayer-fonts mplayer-skins mplayerplug-in smplayer (3) vlc *** the regular use of EPEL for everything else; *** the use of newer packages, such as GIMP 2.3.15 as an almost-2.4 alternative to the obsolete 2.2.12; *** the use of other (unavailable in EPEL or newer) packages, including cosmetic mood enhancers: (i) gnome-dustwave-theme 0.1, a mix of two themes introduced with Ubuntu Jaunty: it uses Dust for Metacity, and New Wave for the GTK+ decorations. Compiz effects *must* be disabled. (ii) gtk-nimbus-theme 0.1.2, the latest default theme that comes with OpenSolaris 2009.06. As I am not even on my home continent these days and I can't fix any reported issue right now (oh well, but does Dag ever fix RPMforge?), I have not announced this repo in any public place, but it was nevertheless announced on epel-devel-list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2009-June/msg00103.html Be free to test and report. Thanks, R-C aka Béranger __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
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 this situation either, but when 2 repositories have conflicts, shouldn't the one that has been serving people longer have some consideration by the newer players? That is, shouldn't EPEL work to avoid conflicts with pre-existing, well known repositories? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:40:49AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: 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 this situation either, but when 2 repositories have conflicts, shouldn't the one that has been serving people longer have some consideration by the newer players? That is, shouldn't EPEL work to avoid conflicts with pre-existing, well known repositories? Attempts were made, failed for various reasons and the whole thing can be read about in various mailing list archives and/or IRC logs... Perhaps new attempts could be made? As for me, I'm more comfortable with EPEL and its Fedora-vetted packages and use rpmforge only for a few things. The two are definitely *not* compatible. :-) Ray ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
Les Mikesell wrote: 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 this situation either, but when 2 repositories have conflicts, shouldn't the one that has been serving people longer have some consideration by the newer players? That is, shouldn't EPEL work to avoid conflicts with pre-existing, well known repositories? It's a two-way street. When/if conflicts have occurred in the past, problems identified (to both parties) were rectified quick enough. I've helped facilitate that, and get assurances from both sides that cooperation is in everyones best interest. -- Rex ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Les Mikesell wrote: 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 this situation either, but when 2 repositories have conflicts, shouldn't the one that has been serving people longer have some consideration by the newer players? That is, shouldn't EPEL work to avoid conflicts with pre-existing, well known repositories? At LinuxTag I offered to work towards merging by spending time on making both repositories compatible only if the Fedora project values it as well. We can't make them compatible without merging simply because new incompatibilities are easy to introduce and Fedora will never accept a policy where they validate compatibility before making available. Now, I always thought that RPMforge wouldn't have the resources to start making the repositories compatible, but apparently the Fedora projecy is simply not even interested in doing this. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: 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 build GIMP 2.4 or 2.6 unless you you upgrade to a newer GTK+, which would impact on a lot of apps. 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. (1) I expect now patches from you to make a workable audacious based on our audacious package. Apparently you have the interest and the time to do it ? (2) No, they are not compatible, we know. Share to help with this too ? You first have to convince the Fedora people that they will not introduce new incompatibilities before starting. I'd right merge, but also that is not happening as there is no interest. So what is the solution ? Shall I simply stop doing RPMforge ? Is that the position you prefer to force me into ? Because I certainly did not force you into using the repository. I don't know even why you want to use RPMforge, there must be something that is missing from EPEL ? I am happy to learn what you want to do though, because it is easy to criticize, but it takes time to do some work. (And I hope the solution is not another repository, because we have been there :-)) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
Dag Wieers wrote: Now, I always thought that RPMforge wouldn't have the resources to start making the repositories compatible, but apparently the Fedora projecy is simply not even interested in doing this. Dag, we had a lengthy thread on the rpmforge list not long ago to debunk this, and I was under the impression you were ammendable to working together. Has something changed? -- Rex ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
