On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> On 11/04/2016 04:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > As a heads up RHEL 7.3 is released: > > <snip> > > 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! > > And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 > Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors (along > side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already there) > >Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, wrong, etc, etc. There, done. 2. When will it be done?> a. Short Answer: No idea :) (when it is done!) > > b. Long Answer: We normally have CR out 7-14 days after a RHEL-7 > release. We normally have the full tree and ISOs out 14-28 days after > the CR is out. > > Complicating this particular release, we have our annual CentOS Board > Meeting (face to face) in Paris next week and I get on airplane(s) from > Texas to Paris on Monday 9/7/2016, so there will be one full wasted day > there. Obviously the rest of the team will also be traveling to the > meeting as well. > > I will try to tweet updates (@JohnnyCentOS) and post updates here > throughout the build period. > > Currently we are building gcc/glibc and modifying the packages that need > mods and calculating the build order for the SRPM package set. There > seem to be 602 SRPMs that need to be rebuilt on first look. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >-- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
On 11/04/2016 06:14 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 11/04/2016 04:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >>> As a heads up RHEL 7.3 is released: >> >> <snip> >> >> 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! >> >> And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 >> Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors (along >> side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already there) >> >> > Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: > > Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, > wrong, etc, etc. > > There, done.Obligatory addition - the RPM %{release} tag often includes the RHEL minor release, e.g. 7_2 currently, so I will just call it 7.2 and likely same when 1611 tree is released.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:> > > > > 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! > > > > And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 > > Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors (along > > side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already there) > > > > > Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: > > Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, > wrong, etc, etc. > > There, done. > >Please, before a new flame, please read all what related with release numbering discussed on June 2014 thread of centos-devel mailing list: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/thread.html with subject CentOS 7 and release numbering started here by Karanbir: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html Thanks, Gianluca
I'm with Matthew Phelps on this. If CentOS is built with the exact same sources as RHEL, why not keep the numbering scheme the same? That would make life easier for people like me who build CentOS RPMs from tarballs/SRPMS that run on RHEL and having to look up version numbers is just idiotic. I mean, that's a Microsoft pet peeve of mine. This is also why I don't deploy CentOS as much as I would like. I'd hoped the merger/acquisition/partnership with RH would eliminate some of that, instead it seems to be regressing. I don't get it. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net> wrote:> On 11/04/2016 06:14 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> >> On 11/04/2016 04:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >>> >>>> As a heads up RHEL 7.3 is released: >>>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! >>> >>> And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 >>> Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors (along >>> side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already there) >>> >>> >>> Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: >> >> Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, >> wrong, etc, etc. >> >> There, done. >> > > Obligatory addition - the RPM %{release} tag often includes the RHEL minor > release, e.g. 7_2 currently, so I will just call it 7.2 and likely same > when 1611 tree is released. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer *VIF* *International Education* P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA 919-265-5006 office Global learning for all. www.viflearn.com Find VIF on Facebook <http://facebook.com/VIFInternationalEducation> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/vifglobaled> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vif-international-education> Recognized as a ?Best for the World? <http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/> B Corp!
That's all well and good, but how about you actually include the minor number AND the release date? I.e. 7.3-1104 for CentOS 7.3 released today, for example. I'm all for the SIGs to keep track of their own upstreams, but surely there's a better way to do this that doesn't annoy the heck out of us Joe-Blows out here. A lot of us don't have the time (or inclination) to deal with oddball version discrepancies when there really doesn't need to be. I mean, there are dozens of Ubuntu distros and they all use the same basic versioning schemes. (Maybe not a completely fair example, but still.) Isn't the idea with CentOS to be a method of generating a larger testing base and interest in RHEL and it's products? If not, that's how I've always seen it, incorrect or not. On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! > > > > > > And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 > > > Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors > (along > > > side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already > there) > > > > > > > > Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: > > > > Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, > > wrong, etc, etc. > > > > There, done. > > > > > Please, before a new flame, please read all what related with release > numbering discussed on June 2014 thread of centos-devel mailing list: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/thread.html > > with subject > CentOS 7 and release numbering > > started here by Karanbir: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html > > Thanks, > Gianluca > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer *VIF* *International Education* P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA 919-265-5006 office Global learning for all. www.viflearn.com Find VIF on Facebook <http://facebook.com/VIFInternationalEducation> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/vifglobaled> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/vif-international-education> Recognized as a ?Best for the World? <http://bestfortheworld.bcorporation.net/> B Corp!
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Phelps, Matthew <mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1. Is CentOS-7.3 done yet? Answer: NO! > > > > > > And it is NOT CentOS-7.3 .. it is CentOS-7 (1611) based on RHEL-7.3 > > > Sources. The main tree will be labeled '7.3.1611' on the mirrors > (along > > > side 7.0.1406 and 7.1.1503, and 7.2.1511, all of which are already > there) > > > > > > > > Obligatory objection to this version numbering scheme: > > > > Deviating from RHEL in such a basic way is crazy, dumb, stupid, annoying, > > wrong, etc, etc. > > > > There, done. > > > > > Please, before a new flame, please read all what related with release > numbering discussed on June 2014 thread of centos-devel mailing list: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/thread.html > > with subject > CentOS 7 and release numbering > > started here by Karanbir: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html > >I have read that thread, and the backlash against changing the version numbering scheme is dominant there too. Including from one Johnny Hughes. Keep in mind that all of this discussion happened on the development list where very few of us who actually use CentOS are on. There was *no* solicitation of feedback from the general CentOS user community. I have checked. How can we, the actual users of CentOS, petition the board to abandon this scheme? Look, I know this is years old, but because of the above conditions we've had to simply endure a really bad decision and we keep being told "That's the way it is. It's been decided. Just deal with it." Well, I'm sorry, but I don't want to let this go. Can't the CentOS board re-examine this issue? It's not just cosmetic, all the reasons not to change the version from RHEL have been covered in the above thread. They *still* apply. I bet if a poll of actual CentOS sysadmins was taken, 80-90% would be against this thing, still. The horse is not dead, -Matt Thanks,> Gianluca > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu