Re: [WBEL-devel] IA64 ISO's -- any available?

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:07:21AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Milan,
> 
> What I believe they are saying is this:
> 
> John Morris is meeting the needs of the Library, and as such he is
> providing WBEL for that purpose.  He will maintain it.  He doesn't want
> help compiling the files, sending out updates to the mailing-lists, etc.
>
He's certainly expressed some interest in having non-ia32 builds
available, as well as saying that he/you don't have the hardware. So
you're going to need some help with that. The alternative is that the
non-ia32 people find they're own infrastructure and just take the WBEL
source rpms and rebuild them indepedantly; but they'd still carry the
Whitebox name so it seems to make sense to keep all the architectures
under one roof if possible.
 
> There is no pressure on John to complete updates for anyone but the
> Library (except that he likes Whitebox and us and wants to provide the
> updates to everyone).  
That's true, but other people seem to like the project too, and, of
course, if other people are building updates as well it should actually
take some of the load off John, as well as allowing you to update the
Library systems even in his absence. Besides which, if the rebuild was
going to be an internal Library only project there'd be no need to strip
the trademarks in the first place - that only matters if you distribute
the result. 

>Seems to me that Jamie has said that they will put the IA-64 ISOs and
>files on the whitebox.org server so they can be distributed.
>
I think I've missed that email, but there needs to be some way to feed
ia64 updates to the server in addition to just hosting the original
version and once you've got that it's a small jump to use the same
mechanism for feeding ia32 updates as well.
 
> Personally, I would also like to see some of the things donovan nelson
> is trying to accomplish at whiteboxlinux.net (a forum for help, a
> bugzilla, user provided packages, etc.) ... but John is in control of
> WhiteBox Linux and he is making the decisions.
> 
I think John's rightly quite anti a lot of things like that; if WBEL
remains a pretty straight rebuild of RHEL (and I think it should) then
most bugs and contrib packages will be common to both and we can just
hijack RH's facilities.

> At first I wanted more community involvement and to help as well ...
> however, all of that at cAos has caused CentOS to be changed and
> delayed,
>
There has to be a middle way where we can spread the load a bit while
remaining true to the Whitebox principle of not deviating from RHEL.

Ewan