devel August 2010

devel@lists.centos.org

28 participants
14 discussions

Interested in IA64 build.
by James A. Peltier 22 Jan '13

22 Jan '13

I noticed on the SIG that people interested in other ports of interest. I'd like to express interest in the IA64 port. What is the best way to get started? I have two SGI Itanium 2 based machines. One 64 processor x 64GB SGI Altix and a 32 processor x 32GB RAM SGI Prism. They are currently running CentOS 4.8 and I would love to be able to run CentOS 5.5 on them to get them into compliance with the rest of the cluster. -- James A. Peltier Systems Analyst (FASNet), VIVARIUM Technical Director Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpeltier(a)sfu.ca Website : http://www.fas.sfu.ca | http://vivarium.cs.sfu.ca MSN : subatomic_spam(a)hotmail.com Does your OS has a man 8 lart? http://www.xinu.nl/unix/humour/asr-manpages/lart.html

9 53

Fasttrack for C-5
by Alan Bartlett 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Karanbir, Is there an ETA for this repository yet? A status update would be appreciated, please. Regards, Alan.

10 33

Artwork for C6
by Karanbir Singh 07 Nov '10

07 Nov '10

Hi, with the EL6beta2 Refresh, I am going to guess that the rhel6 release isnt far - and one of the things that takes the longest to get sorted out in 'CentOS Lands' is the artwork components. It would be fantastic if we can get some of the centos-artwork packages into the testing repo's by the 15th Aug. So what all do we need in order to get there ? The components we need to start with are the gnome theme, *-artwork packages and *-logos packages. Can we also get a show of hands, on who all are working on these components ? Thanks - KB

21 58

Forums migration to phpbb
by Karanbir Singh 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

Starting a new thread... So there are a few things that need to be done with the forums : - Workable data migration path from the existing forums setup to phpbb - setup a single authentication module with its own account creation / deletion / admin interface - Migrating the wiki, bugs and www site to use the same auth mechanism. Things already done : + phpbb install and tested migration ( I am guessing this based on Marcus's last email ) Looking at the list of things that need to be done, I dont need to be or want to be involved with any of them, but am happy to project-manage if that is something which is needed. So, who's offering to do what ? Step-1 might be to check and verify that wiki/bugs/www can be migrated to using the ldap auth setup proposed for phpbb. - KB

6 15

Looking for input from EPEL
by Stephen John Smoogen 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Please forgive a possible repeat post. I did not see this in the archives so was not sure if it had gotten sent. With the differences between EL-6 architectures we are finding that we need to build things for PPC or i386 that Upstream x86_64 has. Due to people not wanting to have a different RPM spec file from upstream we will end up with an x86_64 package set too.. which as the good old Fat Controller would say "causes confusion and delay". So in order to satisfy various factions we are looking at add a COST to EPEL so that it would be higher than the default 1000 (say 1100). What I would like to know is if this would affect CentOS-6, SciLin-6 or other repos so that we can deal with it now versus later. [And as much as I would like to go with repotags.. that has been seen as a non-starter.] -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines

6 9

Loading pre-built for Red Hat kernel modules
by Ross McKerchar 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

Hi Guys, I have a product which requires it's own kernel module. The vendor provides pre-built kernel modules that are compiled against the stock Red Hat kernels but the product does not successfully identify and load these binary modules on my Cent OS machines. I'm in a discussion with the vendor about fixing this so that the product successfully identifies the Red Hat modules as compatible. However we're not sure if these binary modules will indeed be 100% compatible with the corresponding Cent OS kernel for any given version. The concern was that tiny differences between the kernels, say, the name of the build host, could change the address of a data structure in the kernel which the pre-built module attempts to use. Does this sound like a valid concern? Where does the attempt to provide 100% binary compatibility end? The source for these kernel modules is actually available but I am trying to avoid having to build custom modules. Thanks for your help! -ross

4 3

EOL plans for C3
by Karanbir Singh 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

hi Guys, CentOS-3 goes EOL in about 3 months. I was thinking we should do a couple of things for this milestone : 1) Setup and run an education campaign to inform users about this. 2) Put together some documents that clearly lay down the options that users have at this point, and going forward ( Migration options, upgrade paths, virtualised containers etc ) 3) Put together some scripts that might help people with various options from point-2. Of-course, doing some of (2) and (3) before (1) would make (1) more effective. So, at this time - is there anyone who wants to step forward to take this task up as co-ordinator and lead ? - KB

10 18

nx/freenx updates
by Akemi Yagi 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

CentOS developers, I now have updates to nx/freenx that address the following bug reports: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4428 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4422 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4409 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4408 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4398 Could you please publish them in the extras repo as before? You can find the srpms here: http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/nx-3.4.0-5.el5.ay.src.rpm and http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/freenx-0.7.3-5.el5.ay.src.rpm I thanks people who reported bugs, offered fix/enhancements and performed testing. Akemi

4 16

Re: [CentOS-devel] [packagers] Re: wine 1.2 packages
by Dag Wieers 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > >> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others) > > Yes!!! > > Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable > dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the > standard base repository. > >> It could be: >> >> >> What do people think ? > > From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2 > characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-) But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-) Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras" repository, so: .rf. rpmforge stable (additional packages) .rfb. rpmforge buildtools (buildtools, not required) .rft. rpmforge testing (test stuff, no guarantee) .rfx. rpmforge extras (packages replacing base) Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository. If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base. -- -- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

3 2

wine 1.2 packages
by Janez Kosmrlj 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Hi there, I made wine 1.2 packages for centos. I would like to share them but i don't have a public repository. Is there a place, where i could upload this packages. Maybe someone else would need them too. The packages are built to my needs, so they don't have winetricks or desktop integration, but they work. Regards Janez

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel August 2010