On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 18:03 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Monday 04 April 2011 12:25:06 Mister IT Guru wrote:
> > The one thing I would love to be able to contribute my time to is
> > helping test new code, and get it out the door so guys on the street can
> > test it out.
>
> Before you get
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic
>
> Anyway, as I understand it, this list is for bashing the CentOS devs
> and not the SL ones!
bash, ksh, tcsh, zsh and ash are allowed; bash is not required.
dash is forbidden because we don't mention Debb
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
> For those saying that CentOS devs are slow, take notice that Scientific
> Linux released SL 6.0, *but* SL 5.6 is still in it's *ALPHA* stage. If
> too separate teams are close with results, then there is no room for
> accusations or wo
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Monday 04 April 2011 12:25:06 Mister IT Guru wrote:
>> Maybe it's my curiosity, but my brain tells me that Fedora is the
>> forerunner for RHEL. And the Fedora code is out there. CentOS is built
>> from the RHEL code, with all RHEL specific items removed. Ergo - If I
>>
On 04/04/11 10:03 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> So the main problem that CentOS team has to solve with each major release is
> to construct a build environment that will produce binaries that are bit-by-
> bit equivalent to official RHEL (up to trademarks, branding and some other
> stuff).
>
> > Fro
On Monday 04 April 2011 12:25:06 Mister IT Guru wrote:
> The one thing I would love to be able to contribute my time to is
> helping test new code, and get it out the door so guys on the street can
> test it out.
Before you get flamed-off by people who are already extremely pissed by
previous
in
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:31 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> > On 04/01/11 6:54 PM, Digimer wrote:
> >
> >> I would not fault someone for "moving on", but I would when said person
> >> does so in a manner that only leads to unhelpful drama.
> >
> > yeah, seri
On 04/04/2011 06:47 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
On 3.4.2011 23:57, Steve Clark wrote:
Big issue I saw with Scientific Linux was a lack of commitment to long
term support matching what RedHat and Centos provide.
This seems to be true.
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
https:/
On 3.4.2011 23:57, Steve Clark wrote:
> Big issue I saw with Scientific Linux was a lack of commitment to long
> term support matching what RedHat and Centos provide.
This seems to be true.
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/
A
On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they
can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment.
But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due
to their willingness to publish updates
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 04/01/11 6:54 PM, Digimer wrote:
>
>> I would not fault someone for "moving on", but I would when said person
>> does so in a manner that only leads to unhelpful drama.
>
> yeah, seriously. call the WHAHmbulance.
I don't see how this is helpful e
On 04/01/11 6:54 PM, Digimer wrote:
> I would not fault someone for "moving on", but I would when said person
> does so in a manner that only leads to unhelpful drama.
yeah, seriously. call the WHAHmbulance.
meh.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@ce
On 04/01/2011 09:37 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they
> can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment.
> But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due
> to their willingness to publish u
13 matches
Mail list logo
