Re: Re: Third repos CentOS 5 compatibility

Folks, 

For what's worth, IMO there is at least one thing we at
Centos-devel
could learn from EPEL: they have very clear rules about how
to get
contributed packages into their repo:

http://fedoraproject.org/wik
i/EPEL/FAQ#head-24b4e4b98953a6d3de80019e85e831128d47bb81


I for one have some packages (http://www.durval.
com.br/RPMS/el4/)
I've been trying to contribute to CentOS for many months
now, without
success: I've posted messages trying to submit the packages,
talked to
some developers, even started a page on the CentOS Wiki
about it, but
in the end it came to naught (I privately received
information from
one developer explaining why there are no clear rules, but I
was asked
to keep it confidential and so I can't post it here).

This is very frustrating, and I think it keeps many people
from
contributing to CentOS.

Best Regards,
-- 
   Durval Menezes (durval AT tmp DOT com DOT br, http://www.tmp.com.br/)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 07:38 -0300, Durval Menezes wrote:
> Folks, 
> 
> For what's worth, IMO there is at least one thing we at
Centos-devel
> could learn from EPEL: they have very clear rules about
how to get
> contributed packages into their repo:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wik
i/EPEL/FAQ#head-24b4e4b98953a6d3de80019e85e831128d47bb81

> 
> I for one have some packages (http://www.durval.
com.br/RPMS/el4/)
> I've been trying to contribute to CentOS for many
months now, without
> success: I've posted messages trying to submit the
packages, talked to
> some developers, even started a page on the CentOS Wiki
about it, but
> in the end it came to naught (I privately received
information from
> one developer explaining why there are no clear rules,
but I was asked
> to keep it confidential and so I can't post it here).
> 
> This is very frustrating, and I think it keeps many
people from
> contributing to CentOS.

I don't have anything nice to say ... so I won't say
anything except
this:

When a package is released by CentOS ... one of the current
developers
is using it and we KNOW it works.

We are not looking to replace RPMForge, ATRPMS, KBS Extras,
etc.  CentOS
has some repositories to provide Enterprise software (CentOS
Extras,
CentOS Plus).  We are not trying to make those like the
Ubuntu universe
repos.

RPMForge, KBS Extras and ATRPMS are the place for finding
items we don't
have.

I will also say that we don't just grab someone off the
street to become
a Developer ... but we do add people (the number of
developers has moved
from 4 or 5 to 15 in the 2 last years).

We are currently adding Daniel DeKoK ... in the not so
distant past we
added Dag Wieers and others.

However, CentOS is designed to be Enterprise and provide
support for 7
years ... what is going to happen when you decide that you
no longer
want to support your software?  That is right .. I GET TO
SUPPORT IT FOR
7 YEARS.

Wait and see what happens when some of these "so
called" extras packages
move on past the version of python, glibc, php, etc. and
fail to compile
on the el4 or el5 target.

EPEL is a great idea ... but I want to see what happens when
it gets
hard.  I want to see what drops and what doesn't when the
project
upstream moves to requireing php5 or python-2.4; what are
the el4 guys
going to do.  In CentOS, we try to support what we have and
we have made
a 7 year commitment.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes




_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
> However, CentOS is designed to be Enterprise and
provide support for 7
> years ... what is going to happen when you decide that
you no longer
> want to support your software?  That is right .. I GET
TO SUPPORT IT FOR
> 7 YEARS.
> 
> Wait and see what happens when some of these "so
called" extras packages
> move on past the version of python, glibc, php, etc.
and fail to compile
> on the el4 or el5 target.
> 
> EPEL is a great idea ... but I want to see what happens
when it gets
> hard.  I want to see what drops and what doesn't when
the project
> upstream moves to requireing php5 or python-2.4; what
are the el4 guys
> going to do.  In CentOS, we try to support what we have
and we have made
> a 7 year commitment.

Any chance of joining forces with Scientific Linux in the
add-on 
department at least to the point of having common
repositories in yum 
(perhaps disabled by default)?  Their goals seem similar
including the 
support lifetime and they already have a packaged sun java:

https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/5x/
features/added

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesellgmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 5/7/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesellgmail.com> wrote:

> Any chance of joining forces with Scientific Linux in
the add-on
> department at least to the point of having common
repositories in yum
> (perhaps disabled by default)?  Their goals seem
similar including the
> support lifetime and they already have a packaged sun
java:
>
> https://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/5x/
features/added

There was some talk on the SL list of merging with/using
centos as a
base for SL. We do discuss things with their devs (You may
see Connie
pop up on the lists from time to time). I  would like to see
things
move to a bit more of a 'shared' community in that respect,
but as it
stands now, you should be able to use the SL repos with
centos. It's
all built to work for the same common code.

-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 7 May 2007, Durval Menezes wrote:

> in the end it came to naught (I privately received
information from
> one developer explaining why there are no clear rules,
but I was asked
> to keep it confidential and so I can't post it here).

You are welcome to submit the [CentOS?] 'developer' email
with 
heaeders you assert explains 'why there are no clear rules',

to:
 	securitycentos.org
which is monitored by at least two senior CentOS developers

(including me);  frankly I doubt it says what you think it 
does;  I will consult with the author of the claimed piece
and 
ask if he or she minds its release, if you are not
interested 
in doing so.


Let's look at things which the CentOS site says:

http:
//wiki.centos.org/HowToContribute/Packages
  -- right off the bat:
    "Make sure the package you want to contribute
isn't
     already in some repository ..."

see also:
http
://wiki.centos.org/Become_a_CentOS_developer
  -- which was written with the invitation of Jim Perrin
onto 
the CentOS team fresh in mind.


In looking at your packagings, I see you have:

http://ww
w.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/bincimap/
 	An interesting find, and seemingly not packaged 
elsewhere; last stable seems to be from 2005; a beta seems
to 
be in verson 1.3 since then.  Is it in development, still? 
What about security updates?
  -- Possible candidate


http://www.
durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/catdoc/
 	DAG, PLD, and cAos all carry this
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/DAG/SRPMS/catdoc-0.94.2-1.rf.src
.rpm


http://www.d
urval.com.br/RPMS/el4/fping/
 	DAG, FE, and more carry this part of the BR for Nagios
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/fedora/extras/SRPMS/fping
-2.4b2-7.fc6.src.rpm


http://www.du
rval.com.br/RPMS/el4/fvwm/
 	Wayy back when I seem to have built it; PLD too, and 
RHL 9; FE had it for a while; as I recall there was a
security 
issue in the 1 series, but memory fades
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/fedora/extras/SRPMS/fvwm-
2.5.21-4.fc7.src.rpm
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/ORC/fvwm/fvwm-1.24r-24.src.rpm


http://www.d
urval.com.br/RPMS/el4/id3v2/
 	PLD and FE seem to carry this
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/fedora/extras/SRPMS/id3v2
-0.1.11-4.fc6.src.rpm


http://ww
w.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/imapsync/
 	PLD seems to have it already
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/PLD/2.0/SRPMS/imapsync-1.133-1.s
rc.rpm


http://www.
durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/jpilot/
 	PLD, Centos-2, Fedora Core have versions -- nothing to 
see here


http://www.du
rval.com.br/RPMS/el4/licq/
 	PLD and RPMforge have this already, although older
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/RPMForge/SRPMS/ayo/redhat/7.2/i3
86/SRPMS.freshrpms/licq-1.1.0-fr1_20020228.src.rpm


http://www
.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/mp3info/
 	PLD has it in an older version
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/PLD/2.0/SRPMS/mp3info-0.2.16-6.s
rc.rpm


http://www.d
urval.com.br/RPMS/el4/multi/
  -- seemingly an original and unique packaging under this 
naming series of another's (the author of Putty) tool;  it 
looks marginally interesting
   ht
tp://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/utils/


http://ww
w.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/openntpd/
  -- http://www.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/openntpd/openntpd.spec

 	is unviewable from your webserver, probably with 
permissions issues


http://ww
w.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/parsemce/
  -- http://www.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/parsemce/parsemce.spec

 	is a direct copy from a packaging by #Vendor: Dave 
Jones <davejredhat.com> -- but seemingly never made
it 
further; PLD seems to have it.  Why is it not still going 
upstream?
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/PLD/2.0/SRPMS/parsemce-0.0.8-1.s
rc.rpm


http://www
.durval.com.br/RPMS/el4/privoxy/
 	umm -- in RHEL 5, it seems
  --
/mnt/nfs/var/ftp/pub/mirror/redhat/rhel5/SRPMS/privoxy-3.0.3
-9.2.2.src.rpm

> This is very frustrating, and I think it keeps many
people from
> contributing to CentOS.

sort of like going through a list of packagings and finding

that most are already out there?  ;0

-- Russ Herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel