devel November 2010

devel@lists.centos.org

51 participants
26 discussions

CentOS 5, xen-hotplug-cleanup script
by Baptiste AGASSE 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Hi, There is a little error in the shebang line of /etc/xen/scripts/xen-hotplug-cleanup in CentOS 5 #! /bin/sh ==> #!/bin/sh Regards. Baptiste.

1 0

minimal install CentOS-6 media
by Karanbir Singh 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

hi, so in order to quantify exactly what should be on the minimal install set : - support install from optical media - support install from usb disk - install as native platform + install to Xen domU + install to kvm VM - Functional on post-install + firstboot ( for hooks etc that people put in ) + yum with the standard centos repos + sshd + selinux + functional dhcp client + functional ipv6 stack + ipv4 stack + iptables and ip6tables Questions; * What else should added in ? * Should we remove some more excess ? * what is the thinking on lsb state for this media ? * Finally, I am conflicted on the idea of dropping the gui installer completely. On one hand, we could claw back serious disk space - on the other hand, it drastically changes the install experience. Tbh, the install experience is a bigger deal. But worth pointing out.

6 9

glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources
by Leonard den Ottolander 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Hi, (Posting on this list instead of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I expect CentOS developers to be familiar with the problem I'm running into.) I am trying to build the RHEL 6 sources on top of RHEL 6 beta on an AMD x86_64. I thought I start by updating glibc to the current version before continuing with building gcc. The build of gcc requires both x86_64 and i686 versions of glibc to be available. So I built the x86_64 version with a plain rpmbuild. For the i686 I used mock. Now when I try to update both glibc's I get conflicts between the configuration and documentation files of both rpms. That issue does not exist with the original rpms, I can install both versions without running into conflicts. Is there a way around this conflict without forcing the upgrade? How come the original rpms don't have this conflict? Is it just a matter of the dates on those files being different, and if so, how would I build the rpms for both archs in one run so the dates do not conflict? Any thoughts, pointers and elaboration on the subject is welcome. Regards, Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research

11 32

branding / content changes search
by Karanbir Singh 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

hi guys, Can we target Monday the 29th to finish the audits for branding and content changes ? thanks, - KB

1 0

Trademarked content hunt
by R P Herrold 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

I see a bug filing, done merely by looking for certain words, perhaps with find and grep on an exploded tree. This is probably not helpful The issue is NOT if a word form or file name containing the word fragments 'hat' and 'red' is present. Rather it is if a formal TRADEMARK (as opposed to mere identification) of ANY other party, or non-free (i.e., copyrighted and not under a GPL [former approach] or CC [present approach] or other freely redistributable license) images are present The mere 'use' of the word fragments when used as identifiers is not a problem -- if that file is under the GPL, etc, it is free for reuse without change; if it IS changed, or a derivative work produced from teh sources that generate that file, we need to be sensitive to maintaining the COPYING and copyright trail, so a 'light touch' and thoughtful changes, rather than simply running a 'sed' bulldozer through a srouce tree is in order Turning to the upstream sources, Red Hat initially isolated this type of content to two packages: redhat-artwork and the install time 'images' file for anaconda In recent upstream product, I also see; redhat-logos Over time, Fedora has acted to track down and get licenses cleaned up and reviewed, and we benefit from that effort We at CentOS may WANT to alter a given piece of branding art, but please do not conflate what we must do with what is merely a potential 'want' -- Russ herrold

4 3

Artwork packages for CentOS 6
by Marcus Moeller 19 Nov '10

19 Nov '10

Hi all, as there are many changes in Anaconda (and not only there) I don't think our old artwork build infrastructure is capable of creating the necessary files. If I should take a look at what needs to be drawn, please point me to the packages/files that needs to be modified. -- Greets Marcus

2 4

package of cemtos 6
by ops Power Fag 19 Nov '10

19 Nov '10

krankbir, found not package needs bramding helps. find where you will tell me?

1 0

CentOS 6 Mirror System Layout
by JohnS 19 Nov '10

19 Nov '10

Would yall say (devs), this would be the default mirror URL layout for CentOS 6? Of course the baseurl also and as goes also for i386? [Base] name=os mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6&arch=x86_64&repo=os #baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/os/x86_64/ John

2 4

RHEL 6 Released
by Rodrigo Barbosa 18 Nov '10

18 Nov '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 For those who have been living under a rock (and don't read slashdot), RedHat released RHEL 6 yesterday. So guys, what can I do to help getting CentOS 6 going ? - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "everything looks perfect from far away" - The Postal Service "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFM3BFdpdyWzQ5b5ckRArmXAKCyCIMbEk/UrZmk2eUjbo3Y6cX5lACgpN+z Sj6Ozw2ko48SUxEByagSUdQ= =n87j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

KDE 3.5
by felek＠bpmok.waw.pl 18 Nov '10

18 Nov '10

Hi, Will be any chance, to get KDE 3.5 on CentOS 6? I ask, because i dont like new-look KDE 4, and not realy love Gnome. -- Regards, Mike

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel November 2010