On Wednesday 12 August 2009 20:34:55 lostson wrote:
> We need to stand up and ask - How may
> I help ? What do you need to get this done. Ask yourself what talents do
> you have that you can offer the project. There are many ways to do this
> and you can find them here
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/C
Hi,
Late to the party, oops! Everything in this email is my personal
opinion, and I speak for myself not the project here. Just as Russ and
Johnny dont speak for the project either in their emails, they speak for
themselves.
On 08/06/2009 02:52 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> I recently started t
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 20:42 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> > I am troubled by the window of opportunity that a hacker has between RH
> > releasing a point release and CentOS releasing the equivalent. Every RH
> > published errata for that stream i
Ian Murray wrote:
> This applies to 5.X as it stands, as 4.X. Once RH 5.4 hits the streets,
> then CentOS 5 users will be in the same boat. I would hope nobody feels
> they are getting beaten up about this. The intention is not to beat
> anybody up. Anyway, I am going to try *really* hard not to p
again (I said that
yesterday, but I am going to try *harder*) because I am just repeating myself
now, which may come across as brow-beating.
From: Les Mikesell
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009 3:41:24
Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> I didn't 'get' the security implications of the rebuild stuff til it was
>> explained to me the other day.
>
> Share the knowledge:) Aside from the delay involved while the devs build rpm's
> from the srpm's, is there more to it?
It's been covered already. When RH doe
>I didn't 'get' the security implications of the rebuild stuff til it was
>explained to me the other day.
Share the knowledge:) Aside from the delay involved while the devs build rpm's
from the srpm's, is there more to it?
Thanks,
jlc
___
CentOS maili
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> I am troubled by the window of opportunity that a hacker has between RH
> releasing a point release and CentOS releasing the equivalent. Every RH
> published errata for that stream is a known weakness to your system and
> there is not a sausage y
You are probably right there. I lost interest in Linux for ages because of what
RH did. It was CentOS that re-ignited my interest. I felt like I could 'get
back' what I had lost when Redhat killed RHL. I didn't 'get' the security
implications of the rebuild stuff til it was explained to me the o
Ian Murray wrote:
> I believe it is better to make
> a different choice of distro, than to ask for substantial changes in the
> current one, especially if other people should do that extra work for you.
>
> Believe what you like, but I believe it's better to raise my concern for
> discussion in t
I believe it is better to make
a different choice of distro, than to ask for substantial changes in the
current one, especially if other people should do that extra work for you.
Believe what you like, but I believe it's better to raise my concern for
discussion in the first instance. For the
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Why don't you go with the SL or even pay RH, if you are that concerned about
> hacking attempts? It seems clear that CentOS is not a good distro for you if
> you are not satisfied with its update schedule. I believe it is better to
> make
> a different choice of distro
On Tuesday 11 August 2009 23:25:23 Ian Murray wrote:
> I am troubled by the window of opportunity that a hacker has between RH
> releasing a point release and CentOS releasing the equivalent. Every RH
> published errata for that stream is a known weakness to your system and
> there is not a sausage
respect at least.
From: Ron Blizzard
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2009 22:06:05
Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project Infrastructure
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ian Murray wrote:
>
>>
>> Part of
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ian Murray wrote:
>
>>
>> Part of my professional work is risk assessing system upgrades. I have
>> been doing so long now that everything I professionally do is considered
>> from a risk perspective. Maybe those of us that have to assess risk
Ian Murray wrote:
>
> Part of my professional work is risk assessing system upgrades. I have
> been doing so long now that everything I professionally do is considered
> from a risk perspective. Maybe those of us that have to assess risk on a
> daily basis understand what I am on about and the
>
>
>
>
>Long live the kings
>
>
>-Ray
I must admit, may be I missed something here, but there seems to be quite a bit
of outpouring of appreciation on this thread. I am sure that all that give up
their time and effort to make CentOS happen really deserve all the thanks and
appreciation they g
James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, it is very evident from the heated exchanges on this
> mailing list that there exists a substantial divergence on which
> path to take from here. It seems to me insupportable that the past
> practices of a small coterie of initiates deciding on everything
> w
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
> The whole thread put shortly (the way I see it) goes like this:
>
> * A community member shouts "Because of recent dev-internal events, I don't
> trust the developers any more, I want the project changed so that I can
> regain
> my trust!"
That's not at all what I s
On Monday 10 August 2009 22:12:41 Ron Blizzard wrote:
> Again, what does
> community input have to do with the mechanical process of turning
> "upstream" code into a 100% binary compatible distribution?
Nothing, of course. :-) There seem to be only two things such "input" would
provide:
(1) the
On Monday 10 August 2009 21:12:11 James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:23:57 +0100 Marko Vojinovic
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, governments are typically not made of experts, but of
> > opportunists. Name one president of > entity here> that has been elected because he has a PhD in polit
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:12 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Nonetheless, it is very evident from the heated exchanges on this
> mailing list that there exists a substantial divergence on which
> path to take from here. It seems to me insupportable that the past
> practices of a small coterie of init
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 03:23:57 +0100 Marko Vojinovic
wrote:
> Unfortunately, governments are typically not made of experts, but of
> opportunists. Name one president of entity here> that has been elected because he has a PhD in political
> sciences/history/law/whatever, or because he had enough ha
Marcus Moeller wrote on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:08:45 +0200:
> Maybe these should just not comment on
> a thread like this.
Yeah. And that's why I wrote very early on that this list isn't the right
place ;-) Just one comment that someone gets in the wrong throat and the
whole thread and purpose of
Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
> So we begin to actively drive away people now who say they appreciate
> the distribution or others who are actively trying to help?
>
> Sorry, please make it clear that this is *YOUR POINT* of view and not of
> all the people who are "making CentOS happen" at the momen
R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> > Personally, it disgusts me.
>
> > Have I said I don't appreciate it?
>
> Yes, actually -- I call b*llsh*t -- you who have done nothing
> are here, and eat without charge at our table, and 'it
> disgusts' you
So we begin to
Hi all,
> Well, I know I have benefited from the discussion because I understand the
> challenges that face the CentOS team with regards to security updates whilst
> they are rebuilding a point release. As has been pointed out to me, we're
> between a rock and a hard-place and it isn't just a simp
To all, especially the developers, people who work on the support
documents in their various forms, and everyone who contributes their
knowledge to this project:
I am another one of those people who reads the lists frequently, but
usually don't have much to contribute since there are many other
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> Well, I know I have benefited from the discussion because I understand the
> challenges that face the CentOS team with regards to security updates whilst
> they are rebuilding a point release. As has been pointed out to me, we're
> between a rock
o consider whether a rebuild is the
best approach for me.
So, for those of you who consider this as "in-fighting", know that some
considers it "learning".
From: William L. Maltby
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Sunday, 9 August, 2009 20:44:0
On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 14:04 -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> As for getting more people to use CentOS, I don't think squabbling on
> a public mail list is exactly the best way to do that.
OTOH, one man's "squabbling" is another's "open discourse", depending on
attitudes, "presentation", etc. That
2009/8/9 Ron Blizzard
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
> > I did understand it the first time, but thanks again for the further
> > clarification. This kinda illustrates my point. Couldn't you have a
> > different repo with these updates maintained by other community members,
>
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
> I did understand it the first time, but thanks again for the further
> clarification. This kinda illustrates my point. Couldn't you have a
> different repo with these updates maintained by other community members,
> under the guidance of the 'core
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ian Murray wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with the distribution itself, long may it live. My
> concern is that it is too reliant on individuals. A concern the devs raised
> themselves through the open letter. I am raising the same concern about the
> 'core' that th
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> That is the problem ... therefore, we HAVE to finish the point release
>> and get it out before we can build new updates released after the point
>> release. This is not new, it has been an issue since the first rebu
Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> That is the problem ... therefore, we HAVE to finish the point release
> and get it out before we can build new updates released after the point
> release. This is not new, it has been an issue since the first rebuild
> more than 5 years ago.
>
> People who do not under
Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>>People who do not understand the technical issues involved do not see
>>why we can't just snap our fingers and put out the packages ... well, we
>>can't.
>
> What you explain makes perfect sense and so thanks for taking the time
> to explain. I was only basing my understandi
hnny Hughes
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Sunday, 9 August, 2009 13:54:50
Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project Infrastructure
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ian Murray wrote:
> WRT to the one valid issue that you raise ... let me explain the
> TECHNICAL reason why you can not release these things
>
>People who do not understand the technical issues involved do not see
>why we can't just snap our fingers and put out the packages ... well, we
>can't.
What you explain makes perfect sense and so thanks for taking the time to
explain. I was only basing my understanding on what Karanbir wrote
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ian Murray wrote:
> WRT to the one valid issue that you raise ... let me explain the
> TECHNICAL reason why you can not release these things hodge podge.
>
> First ... Red Hat releases point releases at regular intervals (3-4
> times per year).
>
> Second ... we do not r
Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
> << I've rambled on too long. But seriously, what is you want? CentOS is a
> great Linux distribution, so what's the problem? >>
>
> The 'progress' I am talking about it making those 4 million installs
> into 5 million installs, if that is important. (I wish 4 mill install
<< I've rambled on too long. But seriously, what is you want? CentOS is a
great Linux distribution, so what's the problem? >>
The 'progress' I am talking about it making those 4 million installs into 5
million installs, if that is important. (I wish 4 mill installs hadn't been
raised, because
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> I can't say I have been following this thread in its entirety, but the
> beauty (?) of free speech is that even the ill-informed get to have a say.
> :o)
>
> Anyway, I think there is a general problem with the name Community
> ENterprise OS. Well,
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> If you mean that I can be an arrogant SOB sometimes, then YES, we (and
> my wife) can agree.
>
Before making an admission like that, you should re-read
http://wwwf.centos.org/127_story.html?storyid=127
I thought then and think now that you were 'way too humble
in de
> 4 million unique machines do not agree with you, regardless of what you
> want to believe.
I don't think the machines have an opinion, either way. :o) Seriously, I
suppose you are using the '4 million machines we must be doing something right'
argument which is fair comment, if perhaps a to
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 20:01 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> If you mean that I can be an arrogant SOB sometimes, then YES, we (and
> my wife) can agree.
>
> I also can certainly try to be nicer, yes.
I am very tired of this whole thread - I think you have covered it well.
But I will say this..
On Sunday 09 August 2009 00:50:16 Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> Your statement implies that people that have not contributed to a certain
> goal cannot possibly have a good suggestion.
Of course, this is a very common and useful line of reasoning in human
society. Put shortly, it increases signal-t
Ian Murray wrote:
> I can't say I have been following this thread in its entirety, but the
> beauty (?) of free speech is that even the ill-informed get to have a
> say. :o)
>
> Anyway, I think there is a general problem with the name Community
> ENterprise OS. Well, Community can't refer to us us
_
From: Johnny Hughes
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Sunday, 9 August, 2009 1:44:47
Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project Infrastructure
Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>>
>>
>
Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sat, August 8, 2009 8:44 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Marko A. Jennings wrote:
>>> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
> please stop poking the bears... ;->
>
> it isn't productiv
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 19:37 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
>
> >
> > I only have one question that I want to add to this gawd-awful thread
> > now.
> >
> > Who is the project serving? The "core" themselves or a "community" of
> > users as well? If that is effectively and
On Sat, August 8, 2009 8:44 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Marko A. Jennings wrote:
>> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>>>
>>>
please stop poking the bears... ;->
it isn't productive and many of you that are critical
Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> please stop poking the bears... ;->
>>>
>>> it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and the
>>> people running it should just move on a
On 8/8/09, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>>
>>> please stop poking the bears... ;->
>>>
>>> it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and the
>>> people running it should just
William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:31 -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>>
>
>> Yep, I think it is because people often want to travel straight from A
>> to Z without having to go through B, C, D, etc. Another subset of
>> people, "the talkers" want to dictate to the "doers" how thi
> Who is the project serving? The "core" themselves or a "community" of
> users as well? If that is effectively and accurately answered, then the
> dynamics of the relationship(s) between users of the project and the
> "core" can be more clearly stated and understood.
In the end, most F/LOSS proje
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 16:14 -0700, Robert wrote:
> >
> > This presents a ripe opportunity for a perception of
> > "unwarranted criticism", "whining" by someone who paid
> > nothing, "lack of appreciation for all the *free* hard work
> > we do", etc.
> >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Bill
> >
>
> B
On Sat, August 8, 2009 4:04 pm, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>
>
>> please stop poking the bears... ;->
>>
>> it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and the
>> people running it should just move on and go away as asked
>
> +1 Ho
>
> This presents a ripe opportunity for a perception of
> "unwarranted criticism", "whining" by someone who paid
> nothing, "lack of appreciation for all the *free* hard work
> we do", etc.
>
> >
>
> --
> Bill
>
Bill,
Good points...
yet you forgot about "presentation" if a person m
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 15:04 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
>
>
> > please stop poking the bears... ;->
> >
> > it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and the
> > people running it should just move on and go away as asked
>
>
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 18:28 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> Sorry Alan, but with the greatest respect I believe it important that
> these types of discussions are allowed to happen openly within the
> community. This thread was started on a community mailing list by a
> member of that community
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 19:31 -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>
> Yep, I think it is because people often want to travel straight from A
> to Z without having to go through B, C, D, etc. Another subset of
> people, "the talkers" want to dictate to the "doers" how things should
> be done, often with
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert wrote:
> please stop poking the bears... ;->
>
> it isn't productive and many of you that are critical of CentOS and the
> people running it should just move on and go away as asked
+1 How easy it is to criticize people who have put in a
tremendous am
Dag
concern is good and you are right about how CentOS people should have a
solid testimony for the projects "big picture"
the thing is that since day one, as near as i have experienced and can tell,
most of them have many years of "rock solid CentOS work" as a testimony.
rock solid!
we haven't
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Bob Taylor wrote:
>
>> Personally, it disgusts me.
>
>> Have I said I don't appreciate it?
>
> Yes, actually -- I call b*llsh*t -- you who have done nothing
> are here, and eat without charge at our table, and 'it
> disgusts' you
>
Alan Sparks wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 05:48 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Second, I am supposed to also kiss your ass?
>>>
>> Is it necessary to insult me? I have said *nothing* to you to warrant
>> this.
>>
>>
>
> Jeez, people, take it offline.
> -Alan
>
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 05:48 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> Second, I am supposed to also kiss your ass?
>>
>
> Is it necessary to insult me? I have said *nothing* to you to warrant
> this.
>
>
Jeez, people, take it offline.
-Alan
___
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 05:48 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:54 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>> Bob Taylor wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> Exactly the *wrong* response. I wonder if responses similar to this
> >>> loses potential users or loses existi
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 11:05 -0400, JohnS wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 08:28 +0200, Andrew Colin Kissa wrote:
> > On 07 Aug 2009, at 8:14 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> >
> > > (like the Contrib repo) are getting a bit clearer so I
> > > guess we are on the right track.
> >
> > Contib repo !!! Wh
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 08:28 +0200, Andrew Colin Kissa wrote:
> On 07 Aug 2009, at 8:14 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>
> > (like the Contrib repo) are getting a bit clearer so I
> > guess we are on the right track.
>
> Contib repo !!! What Contrib repo ? The last time i tried to
> contribute i wa
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:54 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Exactly the *wrong* response. I wonder if responses similar to this
>>> loses potential users or loses existing customers. Personally, it
>>> disgusts me.
>> It is not *wrong* ... an
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:54 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> > Exactly the *wrong* response. I wonder if responses similar to this
> > loses potential users or loses existing customers. Personally, it
> > disgusts me.
>
> It is not *wrong* ... any more than your respon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> R P Herrold wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>> The bit that causes all the confusion here is the "C" in the name
>> CentOS. It would all
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> That was in response to Johnny's comment about having to personally know
> someone before they would be allowed to touch anything in the
> repository. What if something happens to Johnny? Is there a bigger
> picture?
I'm not quite sure what
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> R P Herrold wrote:
> project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
> fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
> across as having a stranglehold of control.
I miss
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> R P Herrold wrote:
project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
across as having a stranglehold of control.
>>> I missed the memo -- what do we hav
Les Mikesell wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>>> project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
>>> fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
>>> across as having a stranglehold of control.
>> I missed the memo -- what do we have a stranglehold on?
>
> Re
So is it contrib repo or my buddies repo ? All we are asking is put in
place the mechanisms
to vet the reputation. The project can not be a true community project
when there are no
mechanisms for contribution.
On 07 Aug 2009, at 9:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> That was in response to Johnny
R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
>> fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
>> across as having a stranglehold of control.
>
> I missed the memo -- what do we have a stranglehold on?
Remember, I'm just comment
2009/8/7 R P Herrold :
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>
>> Then you should not perhaps not call it 'Contrib' repository
>> if no one that you do not personally know can add content to
>> it.
>
> You don't like reputational vetting and a meritocracy, or how
> it is run by the people in
nate wrote:
>
>> *sigh*... Don't take this as a complaint about the quality of the
>> project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
>> fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
>> across as having a stranglehold of control. If we wanted a one man sho
Dear Johnny,
> Well, if something is going to be released as part of CentOS (contrib
> repo or not), then it is going to be correct and it is going to be
> vetted by someone that I PERSONALLY trust ... or it is going to be
> personally tested by me prior to release. Otherwise, it is not going to
Les Mikesell wrote:
> *sigh*... Don't take this as a complaint about the quality of the
> project, just the PR vibes here. You aren't giving people the warm
> fuzzies about the project's ability to survive when you make it come
> across as having a stranglehold of control. If we wanted a one man
Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
There - I feel so much better getting that lot off my chest :)
>>> There are always other distros if you don't like this one ...
>> Exactly the *wrong* response. I wonder if responses similar to this
>> loses potential users or loses existing customers. Personally, it
>>
On Fri, August 7, 2009 12:54 pm, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:40 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> Ned Slider wrote:
Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Dear Russ,
>>
>> [huge snip]
>>
>>> Look ... if you understand how build work, and I know you do, then you
>>>
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:40 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Ned Slider wrote:
>>> Marcus Moeller wrote:
Dear Russ,
>
> [huge snip]
>
>> Look ... if you understand how build work, and I know you do, then you
>> understand that one can not release updates that are built on 4
Dear Russ,
>
> [huge snip]
>
>> Look ... if you understand how build work, and I know you do, then you
>> understand that one can not release updates that are built on 4.8
>> without releasing 4.8.
>>
>> If you need the updates faster, feel free to pay Redhat for them.
>>
>>> There - I feel
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:40 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ned Slider wrote:
> > Marcus Moeller wrote:
> >> Dear Russ,
[huge snip]
> Look ... if you understand how build work, and I know you do, then you
> understand that one can not release updates that are built on 4.8
> without releasing 4.8.
Ned Slider wrote:
> Marcus Moeller wrote:
>> Dear Russ,
>>
> Don't misunderstand. I think you have done and are doing a great job
> but some things are out of any single person's control. All I'm
> suggesting is that it would be nice if there were an easy answer to the
> question
Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Dear Andrew.
>>> (like the Contrib repo) are getting a bit clearer so I
>>> guess we are on the right track.
>> Contib repo !!! What Contrib repo ? The last time i tried to
>> contribute i was told to head on to Fedora or rpmforge.
>
> The Contrib repository has been re-in
Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Dear Russ,
>
Don't misunderstand. I think you have done and are doing a great job
but some things are out of any single person's control. All I'm
suggesting is that it would be nice if there were an easy answer to the
question of "what if" those things
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Marcus Moeller wrote on Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:52:01 +0200:
>
> > Dear Community,
>
> I think the community would benefit from opening a new mailing list for
> these issues. There's already a promo list, but a discussion like this
> doesn't really fit on it. I also think it do
Dear Andrew.
>> (like the Contrib repo) are getting a bit clearer so I
>> guess we are on the right track.
>
> Contib repo !!! What Contrib repo ? The last time i tried to
> contribute i was told to head on to Fedora or rpmforge.
The Contrib repository has been re-invented in CentOS 5.3 but it's
On 07 Aug 2009, at 8:14 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> (like the Contrib repo) are getting a bit clearer so I
> guess we are on the right track.
Contib repo !!! What Contrib repo ? The last time i tried to
contribute i was told to head on to Fedora or rpmforge.
___
Dear Russ,
>>> Don't misunderstand. I think you have done and are doing a great job
>>> but some things are out of any single person's control. All I'm
>>> suggesting is that it would be nice if there were an easy answer to the
>>> question of "what if" those things happen to a few of you. I th
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Don't misunderstand. I think you have done and are doing a great job
> but some things are out of any single person's control. All I'm
> suggesting is that it would be nice if there were an easy answer to the
> question of "what if" those thi
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>>
>
>
>
> The bit that causes all the confusion here is the "C" in the name
> CentOS. It would all be so much clearer if the project would just rename
> to EntOS because that's wha
R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> Leaving outsiders to wonder what happens if those few insiders have a
>> bad day.
>
> ... and we took heat for going public as well. We have done
> what is right and accepted that not all will be pleased.
> Thanks for being in there, throwing rocks, Les
Don't misunders
Marcus Moeller wrote on Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:32:29 +0200:
> I think that 'centos' is the correct list to address these issues as
> it's the most commonly read list and where the 'community' lives.
Well, for the record: I'm not interested to read threads like this on
*this* list.
> I have to agree
Ned Slider napsal(a):
> The bit that causes all the confusion here is the "C" in the name
> CentOS. It would all be so much clearer if the project would just rename
> to EntOS because that's what it is.
>
> I guess the "Community" bit refers to the community of users, nothing more.
Without the
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
