devel April 2009

devel@lists.centos.org

47 participants
30 discussions

Repository metadata problems
by Dag Wieers 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

Hi, I today have a problem as well with metadata being newer than what is available on disk. I wonder whether we should require from mirrors to use rsync with --delay-updates as problems with repository metadata was exactly why we got this feature added to rsync a couple of years ago. We could enforce it from the CentOS mirrors by checking the rsync version and/or options provided to the server. Is something like this feasible ? ---- [root@moria ~]# apt-get update; apt-get upgrade Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64 repomd.xml [1140B] Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64 repomd.xml [951B] Get:3 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64 repomd.xml [951B] Get:4 http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge repomd.xml [1095B] Get:5 http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ repomd.xml [951B] Get:6 http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ repomd.xml [951B] Fetched 6039B in 0s (8752B/s) Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64/ filelists.xml Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ primary.xml [110kB] Hit http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge/ primary.xml Hit http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge/ filelists.xml Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ filelists.xml [674kB] Hit http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ filelists.xml Hit http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ filelists.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64/ filelists.xml Fetched 784kB in 0s (936kB/s) Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded NetworkManager (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-glib (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-glib.32bit (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-gnome (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager.32bit (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) firefox (3.0.6-1.el5.centos => 3.0.7-1.el5.centos) firefox.32bit (3.0.6-1.el5.centos => 3.0.7-1.el5.centos) ntp (4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos => 4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1) xen (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xen-libs (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xen-libs.32bit (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xulrunner (1.9.0.6-1.el5 => 1.9.0.7-3.el5) xulrunner.32bit (1.9.0.6-1.el5 => 1.9.0.7-3.el5) 13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 removed and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 52.5MB of archives. After unpacking 3968kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-gnome 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [344kB] Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-glib.32bit 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [82.1kB] Get:3 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager.32bit 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [1093kB] Get:4 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [1096kB] Get:5 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-glib 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [83.4kB] Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xulrunner 1.9.0.7-3.el5 404 Not Found Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xulrunner.32bit 1.9.0.7-3.el5 404 Not Found Get:6 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ firefox 3.0.7-1.el5.centos [12.5MB] Get:7 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ firefox.32bit 3.0.7-1.el5.centos [12.5MB] Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ ntp 4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1 404 Not Found Get:8 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen-libs 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [145kB] Get:9 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [1845kB] Get:10 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen-libs.32bit 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [148kB] Fetched 29.8MB in 24s (1209kB/s) Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/xulrunner… 404 Not Found Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/xulrunner… 404Not Found Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/ntp-4.2.2… 404 Not Found E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? ---- -- -- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

5 5

5.3´s anaconda src.rpm missing
by Farkas Levente 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

hi, it seems that the anaconda src.rpm missing from the mirror sites SRPMS dir. is there any reason for this or it´s just a bug? thanks in advance. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

16 22

Re: [CentOS-devel] [CentOS-qa] RPM issue
by Phil Schaffner 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:47 -0400, R P Herrold wrote: > My first thought was: The only other list it might move to is > not a centos list -- we don't ship the package 'expressing' > this behaviour, as I read the ticket ["EPEL rhnlib package"]. I think the EPEL package provides an example of the symptom, but is not directly relevant. > But if it is to a centos list, I would put this thread on > centos-devel, and not the main list, which would trigger an > endless quantity of side noise. Agree that -devel would be a better venue if the discussion continues. I put it here because it seemed to be a QA issue when reported on the forums. Cross-posting to -devel, so this thread should presumably be considered closed. ... > > I do not see mention that a bug was filed, and to the extent > that forum answers by 'authoritative answerers' there do not > feed the bug tracker, we hide knowledge of possible errors > from ourselves by leaving it only in the forum I didn't file one, nor encourage the OP on the forum to do so, because I was unsure where to file it. Brandon has opened: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3517 Phil

1 0

forums + portal for {lang}.centos.org sites
by Graeme Spence 09 Apr '09

09 Apr '09

Hi, My name is Graeme, I'm a member of the Simple Machines team and I do apologize if I'm posting this to the wrong spot, however if the main issue against our software SMF is the licensing issue regarding re- distribution were quite up for negotiating an agreement as we have done with others. If SMF was being redistributed would it be modified in any way or just a standard SMF package? Its very nice to be considered and we would happily help in any way we can. Thanks, Graeme

2 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] RPM issue
by Brandon Davidson 08 Apr '09

08 Apr '09

I'm moving this here from from the QA list. For those who missed the original thread, it's linked from the bug report. http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3517 -Brandon Brandon Davidson wrote: > If you look at the spec file for specspo, the string replacement is done > with a patch, so it's not just an overeager sed script... but it does seem like > some of the replacements are unnecessary. > > Other inappropriate translations are present for rhn-client-tools, rhnsd, and > rhn-setup-gnome. The mysqlclient10 package also refers to "CentOS 9" instead of > "Red Hat Linux 9". I'm sure there are others I'm overlooking. > > For the next release, perhaps someone could update the patch to remove > translations for upstream packages that have been removed from CentOS, as well > as going over the remainder to make sure they all make sense? -- Brandon Davidson Systems Administrator University of Oregon Neuroinformatics Center (541) 346-2417 brandond(a)uoregon.edu Key Fingerprint 1F08 A331 78DF 1EFE F645 8AE5 8FBE 4147 E351 E139

5 7

Re: [CentOS-devel] Welcome to the "CentOS-devel" mailing list (Digest mode)
by V Srikanth 06 Apr '09

06 Apr '09

Hello. Does CentOS have plans to release a build of Redhat MRG? If not, please, please consider doing it. _________________________________________________________________ Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx

3 4

Centos 5.3 dependency check?
by Hugo van der Kooij 06 Apr '09

06 Apr '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, It seems that a package is now added to perl in Centos 5.3 that was not there before. So a dependency on perl-MIME-Base64 will fail because that package now seems to colide with perl itself. (SIGHHHH) How can I change my spec file to list the requirement only for Centos/RHEL 5.x where x < 3? Hugo. - -- hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknX4vQACgkQBvzDRVjxmYHvJACfYDKTKpF07O0ooJDujUmyRNkv BK8AnRKSums3kn0aJL3M1pn6xy9AuHNz =XBeU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 5

Broken mirror: ftp.nluug.nl
by Hugo van der Kooij 05 Apr '09

05 Apr '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yum is slow because it returns ftp.nluug.nl as the fastest mirror but that mirror is not in sync. In fact I belive it is in a state of temporal flux as there seem to be some major reorganisation going on. Hugo. - -- hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknX46wACgkQBvzDRVjxmYE2pACeKTBpMP/PycqFDSzRn2kCbRPG oL8An26nVKlJs/ABEkaqVcOvoj7mJi/H =wnjO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

ldconfig issue?
by Hugo van der Kooij 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Did others notic there seems to be a problem with ldconfig on Centos 5? It got apparant with the latest clamav update of rpmforge but it seems that ldconfig does not bild all the information that is required. Or as the report read on the MailScanner mailinglist: > And some more fun: > > [root@liquidity lib]# rm libclamunrar.so.6 libclamunrar_iface.so.6 > rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar.so.6'? y > rm: remove symbolic link `libclamunrar_iface.so.6'? y > [root@liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 > [root@liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep unrar > libclamunrar.so.6 -> libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 (changed) > libclamunrar_iface.so.6 -> libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 (changed) > [root@liquidity lib]# ls -lra libclamunrar* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 142039 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Apr 1 17:24 libclamunrar.so.6 -> > libclamunrar.so.6.0.2 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24434 Mar 27 17:45 libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Apr 1 17:24 libclamunrar_iface.so.6 -> > libclamunrar_iface.so.6.0.2 > > > The issue doesn't appear to be isolated to just ClamAV, though. Look in > your libs and delete any linked .so file and re-run ldconfig. The .so > isn't recreated. > > [root@liquidity lib]# rm libbeecrypt.so libbeecrypt.so.6 > rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so'? y > rm: remove symbolic link `libbeecrypt.so.6'? y > [root@liquidity lib]# ldconfig -v | grep libbeecr > libbeecrypt.so.6 -> libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 (changed) > [root@liquidity lib]# ls -lra libbeecrypt* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 251704 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Apr 1 17:25 libbeecrypt.so.6 -> > libbeecrypt.so.6.4.0 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 833 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.la > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 340262 Jan 6 2007 libbeecrypt.a Is this something that needs to be reported upstream? Or is it Centos 5 specific? Hugo. - -- hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc A: Yes. >Q: Are you sure? >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknT4AgACgkQBvzDRVjxmYEA5QCgrGnY/e5/0bWXRi6jEJI6ByPf LvoAn23lt58ucrqSv9WcUpu/e0qZGblg =Mms2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

CentOS-Sparc - New 'Fedora Secondary' Discovery
by Worsham, Michael 01 Apr '09

01 Apr '09

This report/issue is geared to those attempting to find a CentOS/RH for Sparc. Currently, there is a slowdown to the development of CentOS for the Sparc platform. The current tftp64.img build for CentOS on Sparc does not have support for the low-cost Netra and Sunfire 1U servers, thus hinders any chance of this distro release being used for cheap hardware re-provisioning needs (i.e. basic web servers, database servers, etc). In the past, there was a project called Aurora Sparc Linux, which was based on the Fedora platform. There are older builds still available, but these are rather ancient in comparison to today's kernel and driver updates. Upon doing a bit of in-depth research, I did discover that Ubuntu did release a Sparc build under their v7.10 distro, which supports many older as well as new Sparc-based platforms including the low-cost Netra and Sunfire 1U servers. These special servers require the 'eri' driver commonly called the SunGEM driver. I did, however, stumble upon a 'Fedora Secondary' project which does have actual images and CD/DVD/NetBoot ISO builds available and is based on the Fedora 9 distro. http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/releases/test/9-B eta/Fedora/sparc/iso/ Upon initial testing, I found that the test ISO and the TFTP images do support the low-cost Netra and Sunfire 1U servers as well as other platform, but there seems to be an issue when it comes down to creating the actual disk environment. Out of five tries, three of them tried to create an 'ext2' disk build-out even when ext3 was specified. The remaining two would place the disks in a read-only status -- and even using a rescue boot CD -- failed to restore these to a read-write capability. I recommend to those looking at trying out a RedHat-based distro for Sparc, to look at this build. It might provide some guidance for the CentOS development team going forward for future platform releases. -- Michael

4 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel April 2009