[CentOS-devel] Updates from today

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Thu Mar 10 12:07:06 EST 2011


On 03/10/2011 10:49 AM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> 
> On 03/10/2011 05:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> 
>>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
>>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
>>> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
>>> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
>>> them?
> 
>> When c6 started off, there was a call for people to get involved - there 
>> were no scripts, there was nothing to share - the idea was that people 
>> would help build the bits. So your assumption that there are things were 
>> not sharing are bogus.
> 
> I'm not talking about 6.0 or any release in particular; I am talking about
> CentOS.
> 
> So what about 5.x? Is there any list of packages needed de-branding? Any
> notes about hidden dependencies? Is there anything at all on 5.x that you
> could share with us? Or on 4.x for that matter?
> 

Every file changed in debranding is in the release notes and has a
.centos in the name.

Do an 'ls *centos*' and you will know.

I already published a list of all the build root changes, in a reply to
you 5 minutes ago.

But, that list is outdated as soon as we release new packages because
they fix things.

An example is the issue we were having today with util-linux on the 5.6
build.  Here is the scenario.  The QA team did a compare on util-linux
with the upstream RPM and it failed, so we need to rebuild it.  I
submitted it for rebuild and it failed to build.  Another member of the
QA team finds this:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677452

So, I have 2 choices, I build it with the old gettext or I modify the
SRPM and add the new patch from the bugzilla.  Since we have a no change
policy, I built util-linux against a 5.5 tree with all the updates.

We will likely not need to build util-linux again until they make the
change that fixes this issue.

If I listed this on the wiki, I would also have to remember to change it
when it is no longer applicable.  It is already listed on the RHEL
bugzilla site, so if I search for it there the next time I have the
problem (if there ever is a next time) it will still be there.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110310/8076e8fa/attachment.bin 


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list