Re: [CentOS] How to Contribute to CentOS was: CentOS Project Infrastructure
Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: Here as well, we differ -- CentOS at its core is about boring, and stable and conservative as a core value. You are in the wrong place if you think otherwise. It makes a fine BASE to build on, as Dag's archive has long demonstrated, but there is NOT a good fit for a beginner to start doing invasive changes to get 'the latest and greatest' to compile. That is the 'rap' as to Axel's archive, and why people end up frustrated using it and moan and groan about their ignorance and NOT READING our clear warnings on the wiki's Repositories page I'm not sure I understand correctly, does that mean that you imply ATrpms is doing invasive changes to CentOS/RHEL and people using it end up frustrated while ATrpms is showing ignorance towards them? I don't want to speak for Russ here, but what I think he means is that ATrpms allows things to be added to CentOS/RHEL that require a lot more attention because of the parts the core OS some things replace, especially things outside the Stable branch. Personally, I don't think this is unexpected, as ATrpms also adds lots of functionality ... much like our CentOS Plus repos. So there is much flexibility (a good thing), but also the possibility to break your install if you don't know what you are doing. Of course, this is also very true of the CentOS Plus repo too ... if you add everything willie nillie, then it can also cause issues. Certainly I think ATrpms is a great resource and I use it where I need it. I would recommend caution where things outside the Stable branch are used (just like I recommend for CentOS Plus or the CentOS Testing repos). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to Contribute to CentOS was: CentOS Project Infrastructure
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:04:10AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: Axel Thimm wrote: On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: Here as well, we differ -- CentOS at its core is about boring, and stable and conservative as a core value. You are in the wrong place if you think otherwise. It makes a fine BASE to build on, as Dag's archive has long demonstrated, but there is NOT a good fit for a beginner to start doing invasive changes to get 'the latest and greatest' to compile. That is the 'rap' as to Axel's archive, and why people end up frustrated using it and moan and groan about their ignorance and NOT READING our clear warnings on the wiki's Repositories page I'm not sure I understand correctly, does that mean that you imply ATrpms is doing invasive changes to CentOS/RHEL and people using it end up frustrated while ATrpms is showing ignorance towards them? I don't want to speak for Russ here, but what I think he means is that ATrpms allows things to be added to CentOS/RHEL that require a lot more attention because of the parts the core OS some things replace, especially things outside the Stable branch. Actually all bits that would replace RHEL/CentOS even if rock solid/stable have been moved out of the stable branch to allow CentOS to claim that ATrpms *stable* is not replacing any CentOS parts. I agree that the name testing is being badly abused at ATrpms for harboring package-that-replace-vendor-packages, at least for the RHEL/CentOS/SL packages. Personally, I don't think this is unexpected, as ATrpms also adds lots of functionality ... much like our CentOS Plus repos. So there is much flexibility (a good thing), but also the possibility to break your install if you don't know what you are doing. Nobody should even blindly enable (sub)repos that are labeled testing or bleeding. Even though even for CentOS the testing repo would be rather stable, people should feel intimidated not to taint their systems with testing w/o asking first. I do get a lot of queries of why for example the dovecot packages are marked testing for that long although they have proven very stable over several years. Of course, this is also very true of the CentOS Plus repo too ... if you add everything willie nillie, then it can also cause issues. Everything I think ATrpms could potentially break lands in bleeding, and especially for RHEL/CentOS/SL takes a while to be granted testing or even stable status. I really don't get much negative input from RHEL/CentOS folks due to that. I usually only get complians of the latest RHEL/CentOS kernel has no blah-kmdl support, why? when usually the kernel changes from 5.x to 5.x+1 break the kernel module builds. Certainly I think ATrpms is a great resource and I use it where I need it. I would recommend caution where things outside the Stable branch are used (just like I recommend for CentOS Plus or the CentOS Testing repos). On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:05:55PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: I attribute no bad intent or action to you, nor ATrpms, and indeed both have mirrored your SRPMs, and build and use from it and have for years As my initial post pointed, some people complaining are people blindly mashing archives together, who will never read the clear use case advisories in the CentOS wiki, at your site, or anywhere else, so far as I can tell from experience, anyway I think we should get rpmrepo.org running and make an end with any motivation to mix archives on RHEL/CentOS/SL/Fedora land. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpYchT88RZdh.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to Contribute to CentOS was: CentOS Project Infrastructure
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: Here as well, we differ -- CentOS at its core is about boring, and stable and conservative as a core value. You are in the wrong place if you think otherwise. It makes a fine BASE to build on, as Dag's archive has long demonstrated, but there is NOT a good fit for a beginner to start doing invasive changes to get 'the latest and greatest' to compile. That is the 'rap' as to Axel's archive, and why people end up frustrated using it and moan and groan about their ignorance and NOT READING our clear warnings on the wiki's Repositories page I'm not sure I understand correctly, does that mean that you imply ATrpms is doing invasive changes to CentOS/RHEL and people using it end up frustrated while ATrpms is showing ignorance towards them? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpLDTBBvQlA2.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to Contribute to CentOS was: CentOS Project Infrastructure
Dear Russ. You don't like reputational vetting and a meritocracy, or how it is run by the people in charge who have as one goal: not distributing malware. I get it. Thank you. Hey Russ, it's open source. You can just review the spec and comment it until it's ready for release. Source could be fetched directly from upstream and patches could be verified easily. If you want my attention seeking to persuade, do not start a communication: 'Hey' as I consider it rude. Sorry if I was getting rude and thanks for pointing some things out. ... You (Marcus) have established yourself as irrelevant to me. I will not presently be supporting you for further advancement into the CentOS infrastructure if you seek or are proposed for such, until I see some 'merit' outside of talking ... but I must admit that your above statement is very rude to me. I have started working on the project about 1 1/2 year ago, joined the promo sig and tried to promote CentOS. I personally do not see much sense in a bugtracker despite to distinguish if a bug should be tracked upstream or not. The few bugs left that are 'really' related to the project is something I am willed to look at. Al and I have already started working on the new Website Infrastructure and forum migration with quite a lot success (which can be seen in the wiki). Since March, Al is getting payed by me for his work on the project. I have offered my help on rebuilding the which was not necessary so I have aksed Karan to line out the build process to make it at least transparent as possible (which is necessary in my pov). I am continuously tracking wiki changes and fixing articles. Besides that I have started to talk with Karan about setting up a legal background for the project and offered my help in the GSoC and contributed to the necessary application docs. Besides that I have taken care of the Pulse Newsletter. This, I have all done in my 'free' time and I do not welcome your comments on that. Maybe we are working on different areas but this is not the form of respect I expect form a person like you. Btw. I would rather call myself a pusher not a talker ;) But I have agree on some points. CentOS != Fedora and note meant to be for newcomers (at least in form of contributions) and maybe a 'Board' is not possible on a project like this. But at least contributors should be welcomed and not treated like today and if a 'Contrib' repository is available it should be used as named. Otherwise I would just remove it and suggest EPEL/RPMForge instead. Best Regards Marcus ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How to Contribute to CentOS was: CentOS Project Infrastructure
On Aug 8, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Marcus Moeller m...@marcus-moeller.de wrote: Dear Russ. You don't like reputational vetting and a meritocracy, or how it is run by the people in charge who have as one goal: not distributing malware. I get it. Thank you. Hey Russ, it's open source. You can just review the spec and comment it until it's ready for release. Source could be fetched directly from upstream and patches could be verified easily. If you want my attention seeking to persuade, do not start a communication: 'Hey' as I consider it rude. Sorry if I was getting rude and thanks for pointing some things out. ... You (Marcus) have established yourself as irrelevant to me. I will not presently be supporting you for further advancement into the CentOS infrastructure if you seek or are proposed for such, until I see some 'merit' outside of talking ... but I must admit that your above statement is very rude to me. I'm loath to further this thread any more, but like it or not if core developers say it's closed to contributions, it's closed to contributions. I'm happy to make package suggestions on 'devel' in hopes that one developer might see merit in a package and pick it up for 'extras' or 'plus', but if not, then oh well. There is no point in whining about it. This is a small group with a very distinct goal. Provide a equivalent community supported version of a commercial Linux package and that is it. They are not out to create their own spin-off distribution, if you want that try Scientific Linux, but an IP free duplication that projects like Scientific Linux can base off of. -Ross ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
