Hi,
Earlier in the evening today Ralph, Fabian and I had a chat about the
present state of the language subsites. This email sort of summarises
the main issue ( s/w ).
We seem to have run into a slight technical hitch with punbb/fluxbb.
They dont support LDAP as a backend. And we had decided a few months
back that all new rollouts must have ldap backend so we can rollin
CentOS-DS / openldap based backend.
So we need to look at alternatives, and since the primary focus of these
international sites is going be forums : Here is a shortlist ( if there
is anything else that people are aware of, please add to this list )
- phpBB
- SMF
- Fudforum
- phorum
- fluxbb
Requirements:
- Must be able to scale ( couple of hundred thousand msgs )
- Must be able to handle ldap auth ( if it cant, whats involved in
writing the ldap-auth portion )
- Must address the specific requirements raised by the present
www.centos.org forum users ( Can you please fill this section in ? )
- Must support all languages we need ( pure utf8 support would be good )
- Secure
- Skin'able
Nice to have:
- Capable of running multiple instances from a single deployment
- responsive community :D
Things we will need to do:
- Decide on what s/w to use.
- Give the ArtWork people enough time to get the look & feel sorted.
- Migrate newbb forums from www.centos.org to $system ( hey, english is
a language too :D ).
- Migrate fr.centos.org into the final s/w
- setup {de/es/ja/it/pt_br}.centos.org
Actions:
Ralph and Fabian are going to work on setting up a test ldap server,
once that is online we will then start by installing into our
test-vm-farm the various s/w to eval them.
If anyone would like to help, please feel free to jump right in.
I'll setup a wiki page for this issue, which might be a good place to
track progress.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
I just installed devtoolset-1.1-gcc-c++ and
devtoolset-1.1-gcc-plugin-devel on a clean install and after doing so
/opt/rh was a directory and not a symbolic link to /opt/centos. It was
an easy fix, but is there something I can do to help diagnose the
cause of the issue so it won't bite other people?
Thanks,
Dave
Hi all,
The initial commit I made (not carried out pull request just yet) does the
following:
* Installs IPA packages
* Does automated basic configuration of server
* Verifies kerberos tickets being issued for host/admin user
* Tests adding a user (and checks that the initial password is expired
plus the change)
In the next few days I'm intending to add:
* Test adding a service and getting a keytab and certificate for that
service
* Test adding a host
* Test adding DNS zone and records
* Test reloading bind (regression test for RHBA-2013-0739)
* Test sudo rules configured via IPA
* Test deleting all the stuff added above
After that I'll issue the pull request...
Next stage subsequent to the server tests working would be client side to
tests registration against the IPA server itself...
Is there anything else that anyone can think of that would be useful to
have in the IPA test suite?
Cheers,
James
Is Qt Creator for Qt 4 available for CentOS (either 5 or 6)? I've installed
the qt and qt-devel packages on CentOS 6 and I can launch Qt Designer, but
is there a version of Qt Creator available?
Thanks,
Dave
Hello,
I will to build a new iso for myself with custom packages and kickstarts.
Currently which tools do you use to build your centos builds? According to
my research, pungi and revisor are some tools. Do you have any
recommendation?
Regards,
Hi,
The current gdm update https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-1213.html
comes with an updated initscripts package.
Currently a CentOS 5 gets the gdm update but not the initscripts package.
Isn't it dangerous for those running with X because gdm doesn't create
/tmp/.X11-unix anymore and the new initscripts, which creates it now, is
not already available?
Regards,
Simon
According to this bug report:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6548
(originally from http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=642729 )
a patch introduced in kernel 2.6.32 causes a performance drop in
[certain] SSDs. This patch was later reverted in the mainline kernel.
With this kernel, the reporter says, the SSD performance is now what
is expected from the spec.
I have built a centosplus kernel that has the referenced patch
reverted. My limited test (using hdparm) did show some improvement
with this kernel. kernel-ml from ELRepo (currently at 3.10.0-1.el6)
gave a number similar to this plus kernel.
http://people.centos.org/toracat/kernel/6/plus/bug6548/
Please test if you can and report back with your findings (good, bad,
no diff ...). Note that the packages are not signed and are provided
for testing purposes only.
Thanks in advance for your input.
Akemi / toracat