devel January 2014

devel@lists.centos.org

96 participants
58 discussions

CentOS 7 Artwork
by Marcus Moeller 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Hi all. Here is my proposal artwork for the upcoming CentOS 7 release. https://polybox.ethz.ch/public.php?service=files&t=b7bc0652a190725e39fe9558… https://polybox.ethz.ch/public.php?service=files&t=5b788217a30cb72953e64454… Greets Marcus

6 5

OpenNebula Variant and Cloud SIG proposals
by Jaime Melis 26 May '14

26 May '14

Apologies, I sent this to KB's direct mailbox earlier today and apparently I didn't send it to centos-devel. So I'm forwarding it now. Given that there are at least two other projects keen to make this happen, it would be great if the Cloud SIG could be a single multicloud target. -- Hello, I'm Jaime Melis from the OpenNebula project [1]. We have been involved with CentOS for the past year making a stable Cloud Management Platform [2]. I would like to hereby propose a new CentOS variant, namely the OpenNebula variant. This variant would add three roles to the CentOS installation: * OpenNebula Frontend * OpenNebula Node KVM * OpenNebula Node Xen The work for the Frontend and Node KVM roles has been completed and is ready to be released. The Node Xen role is still in progress although close to being finished. This work should take place under the Cloud SIG umbrella, which right as of now doesn't exist, so I would like to also propose the creation of this group with the aim of making the major cloud platforms work wth Centos. Regards, Jaime [1] http://opennebula.org/ [2] http://wiki.centos.org/Cloud/OpenNebula/QuickStart -- Jaime Melis Project Engineer OpenNebula - Flexible Enterprise Cloud Made Simple www.OpenNebula.org | jmelis(a)opennebula.org

3 7

Secure Boot in RHEL7beta
by Akemi Yagi 30 Apr '14

30 Apr '14

RHEL 7 beta can be installed on systems with 'Secure Boot' enabled as seen in the Installation Guide [1]. More info about Secure Boot is available from Fedora docs and the links therein [2,3] Question is how the implementation of Secure Boot should be handled in CentOS. Akemi [1] https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secureboot [3] http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/UEFI_Secure_Boot_Guide/i…

2 3

Russian localized Freenode.net channel #centos-ru
by Мернов Георгий 26 Feb '14

26 Feb '14

Didn't receive an answer for my mail, trying to send it again. Hi, i would like to start a Cyrillic UTF-8 community channel on a Freenode. Can you assist me in ? -- С Уважением Мернов Георгий

3 15

Storage SIG proposal
by Patrick McGarry 13 Feb '14

13 Feb '14

Greetings CentOS-devel, We here at Inktank (and the Ceph project) are quite interested in the direction that CentOS is headed and would love to propose a 'Storage SIG' to help ensure that something so fundamental gets the proper attention. There are definitely aspects that will overlap with Core, Cloud, and Virtualization, but we think there are plenty of places where storage should have it's own discourse. We are already building CentOS packages for Ceph and would like to encourage other storage offerings to do the same. We are definitely in alignment with the requirements and want to ensure that: 1) the discourse remains primarily CentOS related, or at least tangentially applicable. 2) there is plenty of feedback and control into, and out of, the core CentOS community. 3) all communications take place in public (either IRC or mailing lists). 4) all code is compatible with a FOSS license (in our case, LGPL v2 w/ fragmented copyright). 5) all documentation is compatible with the CentOS wiki license. 6) the storage SIG would be very mindful of CentOS direction and coordinate effectively. 7) we have the appropriate buy-in from the CentOS devteam. For a (very rough) outline of form and function I was thinking of the following. However, this will obviously grow and mature with feedback. Mission To ensure that CentOS is at the forefront of next generation storage technology and has a wide range of mature options for both traditional and distributed systems. Technical Goals * Assist with packaging and testing of storage technologies for CentOS repositories * Documenting paths to deployment and use for various storage technologies * Hold an open discourse around storage technology as it applies to CentOS * Work closely with providers of storage technology to ensure tight integration with CentOS Community Goals * Provide an easy-to-consume menu of storage and deployment/orchestration options * Act as a resource for those exploring next generation storage technology * Ensure that all storage technology is addressed equally without favoritism * Work with users to publish use cases and real-world examples for review I welcome any and all feedback and look forward to working with the CentOS community. Thanks. Best Regards, Patrick McGarry Director, Community || Inktank http://ceph.com || http://inktank.com @scuttlemonkey || @ceph || @inktank

4 8

/opt/rh is a directory and not a symbolic link when installing devtoolset
by Dave Johansen 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

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

2 2

Xen/Xen4CentOS SIG
by Lars Kurth 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Hi all, congratulations on the RedHat/CentOS announcement. Sorry for responding so late on SIGs: I was in China until recently and had no time to follow up. There is definitely interest to continue the Xen (or Xen4CentOS) SIG within CentOS, building on the Xen4CentOS work of last year. I want to get the endorsement of the Xen Project Advisory Board for joining the SIG at next Tuesday's board meeting. This will give an application (if needed) extra weight. I don't expect any issues. The other question I have is whether we do need to re-apply (http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup lists Xen4CentOS as a SIG already) and what the format for an application would be other than posting to this list. Maybe we ought to look at the naming of the SIG and make it more generic to cover for future version changes in Xen as well as targeting CentOS versions beyond CentOS 7 (which ought to be a lot easier than CentOS 6 because we only need Xen and no custom kernel). Also, there would probably be practical issues on list naming, etc. (Xen4CentOS is merged with CentOS-virt from a list perspective). I don't have an issue with the status quo, but it may be cleaner for CentOS in the long run if there was a clear SIG to list mapping. Best Regards Lars

2 4

ClearCenter Marketplace for CentOS Variant
by David Loper 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

ClearCenter and ClearFoundation are interested in starting a CentOS variant called 'ClearCenter Marketplace for CentOS'. This will allow management of various CentOS services, EPEL packages, and third party applications to be easily managed and configured under CentOS. We are also interested in being part of a SIG centered around 'Server Management.' Please let us know the next steps. We'd like to get started right away and we are willing to participate in the process of helping to set up shop. Let us know how we can serve. -- David Loper President, ClearFoundation

4 10

VoIP SIG
by Rob Thomas 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

I'd like to put my hand up to be part of the VoIP SIG. After mentioning this in IRC, I've also had two other people contact me privately (puzzled and JHogarth) with their interest too. Currently we (FreePBX) build 'FreePBX Distro', which is a up-to-date CentOS distro, with a couple of known-broken packages upgraded (drbd, pacemaker) or replaced (asterisk). --Rob

7 15

Repository structures for SIG and variants in the future
by Jim Perrin 05 Feb '14

05 Feb '14

As part of opening up the possibilities for SIGs and Variants within the CentOS ecosystem, we need to give some thought to how repositories should be structured so that different can cooperate with each other. What we have discussed in the past, and what I'd like to propose to the -devel community, is that we adopt a page similar to the KDE framework. The way I envision this working is as follows: - Tier 1 repositories: Adds packages only. These repos may not update or replace anything in the core distribution. (Example: EPEL) - Tier 2 repositories: These repositories may provide provide packages that update or otherwise enhance packages in the base distribution, but otherwise maintain compatibility. (Example IUS - Tier 3 repositories: These repositories contain packages that conflict with software inside the core distribution. This would be Xen4CentOS for example, which replaces the kernel, and adds in xen functionality. Each tier may choose to rely on dependencies from repositories in the tier above it, but not the other way around. For example, the tier 3 Xen4 repository could choose to rely on packages from a tier1 like EPEL, or a tier2 like IUS. However a tier1 or tier2 could not rely on a tier3. A good real-world example of this would be rpmfusion's dependence on the EPEL repository. The other aspect of this that needs to be discussed is package duplication. For example, several of the proposed SIGs have some overlap in their packages. Would the preference here be that each SIG/Variant maintain their own version of the package, or should there be a common package set established? Both methods fit into the model described above, and both have pros/cons associated. What does the community think about this? -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77

11 51

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel January 2014