CentOS 8

A 5 star hangout for overworked and underpaid system admins.
fluke11
Posts: 5
Joined: 2009/02/13 19:00:45

Re: CentOS 8

Post by fluke11 » 2019/09/11 22:03:42

stevemowbray wrote:
2019/09/11 11:41:01
There is no RC, so all this is moot. Releasing an RC would require additional effort from the maintainers which is better spent actually working on the release, surely?
Thank you for your feedback. I accept this as being your opinion. However, I am having a little trouble accepting it as fact.

The About Building 8 web page shows the RC work as done in the middle of August. But I understand you don't like me using the term RC. May it is because you feel it implies there is a working ISO image or that Anaconda should be expected to be fully working. To be clear, I wasn't expecting or trying to imply there is either an ISO or working Anaconda as part of "RC work: DONE," just that the Build Loop N produced RPMs have made it to the RC stage. However, if I need to avoid using the term RC to make you happy, I will attempt to do so.

Can I use the term CentOS "Rawhide?" A pool of RPMs no one should ever expect to always work or ever have critical bug reports. Something that would be similar to Fedora Rawhide? Can we have a CentOS Rawhide of the RPMs that have already been built and CentOS already has? Again, I'm not asking for any ISO image or installer, just the RPMs. Or to be more specifically, I am just asking for the RPMs that the CentOS project already has successfully built according to Koji. Even if we can't acknowledge that a "RC" exists, can we acknowledge the Koji built RPMs exist?

How much time do we consider will be "wasted" in providing a CentOS Rawhide? It will suddenly delay the release by... ??? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

What if the request was backed off to just *ONE* RPM? What if the request was that this one URL returned an actual RPM:
https://koji.mbox.centos.org/pkgs/packa ... x86_64.rpm

What would be the excuse on the amount of time "wasted" to turn the 403 Forbidden for *ONE* RPM into a 200?

I'm not demanding that any RPM be released or that I stating that I am interested in getting only one RPM. But I'm just curious at this point how far we are going to take the excuses.

If it isn't practical to be "community-driven" project, that is fine. But shouldn't the primary web page then reflect the fact it is a waste of time to work with the community? If there is "historical reasons" the community needs a 403 ban hammer thrown upon them for their own good... then O.K. But can we be just little more transparent then about the direction this Red Hat owned project is going then?

User avatar
avij
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3038
Joined: 2010/12/01 19:25:52
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: CentOS 8

Post by avij » 2019/09/17 06:44:30

So now it is public. The planned release date is September 24th.

Hix
Posts: 2
Joined: 2019/09/10 14:09:25
Location: Prague, CZ

Re: CentOS 8

Post by Hix » 2019/09/17 07:49:21

avij wrote:
2019/09/17 06:44:30
So now it is public. The planned release date is September 24th.
supercool! Just found it out on the website 8-)
coming from BSD world...

Post Reply