Red Hat 6.1 final is out !!! when centos 6.1 ?

[HerpGuy]

This has me a little worried about the long term viability of CentOS but on the other hand, I understand there is an issue of lots of point releasing having happened at the same time, each requiring a QA process.

Personally I'm no rush to jump on the 6.x bandwagon. I'll need to do it at some point, though honestly, TUV (I assume that means The Upstream Vendor ?? I've heard they can be touchy about use of their name) may be at 7 before that happens.

With respect to security patches, here's an idea - a community run repository that exists solely for the purpose of rebuilding/backporting security patches from TUV into CentOS 4/5 so that we aren't left waiting for the CentOS team. I already do this myself in CentOS 5 (but only when I think the bug results in a vulnerability I'm exposed to).

We would need to be careful with the release tag to make sure our packages are replaced by official CentOS packages when released. That can be accomplished by using the current CentOS release tag and appending .0.n to the end of it - n being the sequential patch (usually a 1 unless TUV releases more than one patch before CentOS catches up). Rebuilding in mock should be sufficient.

It's a relatively simple solution that would provide a simple yet effective solution to the delayed security patch problem.
And if, and I hope it never comes to this but if CentOS ever turned out the lights, it could at least continue to provide security patches though TUV life of the product.

[pschaff]

[quote]
HerpGuy wrote:
This has me a little worried about the long term viability of CentOS but on the other hand, I understand there is an issue of lots of point releasing having happened at the same time, each requiring a QA process.[/quote]
Multiple releases were certainly one issue. Some of the developers have been less able to contribute for various reasons, and others have not been brought in to help. I will not speculate as to the motivations for not bringing in more help, but it has certainly occasioned considerable criticism. Recent updates have been much more timely as can be seen by browsing the [/quote][url=http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce]centos-announce archives[/url].

[quote]
...TUV (I assume that means The Upstream Vendor ??[/quote]
Yes.

[quote]
I've heard they can be touchy about use of their name)...
[/quote]
They really have to be. Trademarks that are not protected become worthless.

[quote]
With respect to security patches, here's an idea - a community run repository that exists solely for the purpose of rebuilding/backporting security patches from TUV into CentOS 4/5 so that we aren't left waiting for the CentOS team. I already do this myself in CentOS 5 (but only when I think the bug results in a vulnerability I'm exposed to).

We would need to be careful with the release tag to make sure our packages are replaced by official CentOS packages when released. That can be accomplished by using the current CentOS release tag and appending .0.n to the end of it - n being the sequential patch (usually a 1 unless TUV releases more than one patch before CentOS catches up). Rebuilding in mock should be sufficient.

It's a relatively simple solution that would provide a simple yet effective solution to the delayed security patch problem.
And if, and I hope it never comes to this but if CentOS ever turned out the lights, it could at least continue to provide security patches though TUV life of the product.[/quote]
Sounds like a worthwhile project. Good luck.

[LazLong]

[quote]
RonB wrote:

But the fact remains that SL turn-around is not faster than CentOS overall. It took them nearly 4 months to get 6.0 out (working on it exclusively), 4.9 came out after that and 5.6 is still in beta -- so, overall, it's taking them about the same amount of time for these three releases. It was their priority that was different. Past release dates show that SL and CentOS take almost the same amount of time to rebuild each point release, with CentOS usually coming out slightly more quickly.

So, even with all their resources, it takes them about as long as CentOS. That should probably hint that there is a certain amount of time required for the process and you pretty much can't get away from it.[/quote]

Please excuse my imprecise use of the term "update." By this I meant security errata. SL has indeed released security errata more quickly than CentOS in the last year, and most likely for the policy and financial reasons I stated. By this I do not mean CentOS' errata release cycle is slovenly, merely limited to the resources at hand. If anything my post was a jab at the commercial use of CentOS without CentOS apparently receiving much in the way of support from those that directly benefit financially. I'm one of those who believe TANSTAAFL, and that think it unfair people bitch at CentOS' release cycle, but don't pony up any resources to change this.

Lastly, SL doesn't work exclusively on any given release; they are constantly back-porting security errata for the reasons I stated in a previous post.

[LazLong]

[quote]
AlanBartlett wrote:
This brief note from me is not directed at any person in particular. I would like to state the following:

(1) [i]Scientific Linux[/i] is not just funded by an American entity nor does it just exist for America. There are two main parts of [i]Scientific Linux[/i] that make up the whole, [i]CERN[/i] in Europe and [i]FermiLab[/i] in the US of A. Each of those two entities contribute to [i]Scientific Linux[/i] and both are funded by the relevant citizens' taxes.

(2) The [i]CentOS Project[/i] is not an American entity, it is global. The active, core, developers originate from diverse nations and, in the case of a few of them, are currently located in nations other than that of their birth. Hence to start making suggestions (however well meant) for how the [i]CentOS Project[/i] should operate [b]from your own nation's perspective[/b] is both meaningless and unhelpful.

[/quote]

I certainly hope that this post wasn't inspired in part by my comment that SL enjoys far more financial backing than CentOS, and that comparing them is unfair. However egotistical it may be, I can't help but feel it was, in some part.

I certainly did not say, nor imply, that SL is a product/entity/exclusive property/solely funded by America or American interests. Hence " funding from DOE, among other entities." Other entities meaning CERN, DESY, etc.

As for your second point, I have no idea where this is coming from, certainly not from any of the posts in this topic, unless it is directed at the person who was using the US term for a specific type of non-profit. This was obviously meant as a suggestion for CentOS to receive tax-free funding from US coporations, who could in turn deduct the contributions from their tax burden. Not that CentOS is/should become an American-centric organization. Methinks you are too sensitive to nationality.

And to your third point, I'll have you know that I bathe daily, dry my fur thoroughly, don't knowingly eat turnips, nor live under a bridge. Tho I do live not that far from the Chrysopylae bridge. :-D

[sblantipodi]

very bothered from all this talking, talk less, work more :)

is there an ETA on when CentOS 6 will be released?
Are we talking of september, december, march 2012, when plus minus?

[AlanBartlett]

[quote]
is there an ETA on when CentOS 6 will be released?
[/quote]
Yes.

[img]http://www.centos.toracat.org/ajb/tmp/sneaky.gif[/img]

This year, [b]2011[/b].

[WhatsHisName]

[quote]RonB wrote:

What I've established *AS FACT* is that it takes about the same amount of time for CentOS and SL to rebuild a point release. CentOS is usually a bit faster. I've already admitted (several times now) that SL releases security updates as they go, but you continually fail to acknowledge this. And that doesn't change the FACT that the rebuild process itself, per point release, takes just about the same amount of time for both distributions.

Am I somehow obtuse on this point? This is the argument I've been making over and over again. Sorry if it's confusing to you.[/quote]
Obtuse? No, I visualize a different word. :-)

In the grand scheme, which group finalized their cloned point release first is not as relevant as the timely availability of security updates.

That is the point: Timely Security Updates

Others have addressed the finer points, so I will not belabor the issue.

Most linux admins using EL clones find it desirable for the security updates to be released before the point releases are finalized.

Even the CentOS developers now agree: [url=http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-May/007649.html]CentOS-[56] Continous Release[/url]

Hopefully, future CentOS point release builders will provide the same benefit of timely security updates during the point release building process that SL users have enjoyed for years.

[canuck15]

[b][color=FF0000]Post contents removed due to a failure to observe the[/color] [url=https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14274&forum=47]forum guidlines[/url].[/b]