devel January 2014

devel@lists.centos.org

96 participants
59 discussions

Adding community PostgreSQL RPMs to CentOS repositories.
by Devrim GÜNDÜZ 26 Jan '14

26 Jan '14

Hi, Greetings first: I am maintaining the PostgreSQL community RPMs : http//yum.postgresql.org About 2 years before, Karanbir and I spoke a bit about adding these RPMs to CentOS repositories. Right now, only 8.4 is officially supported in RHEL/CentOS, which will be EOL'ed in a few months by upstream. However, community has RPMs for all versions from 8.4 to 9.3, which are in active development and released at the same time with the tarballs. Community RPMs has the ability for parallel installation also, so that people can run multiple version as the same time. So, how would you like to proceed? The SVN repo is open to public, and all you will need to do is pulling them and building the packages on CentOS servers. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

4 13

EPEL and i686
by Karanbir Singh 25 Jan '14

25 Jan '14

Hi Whats the plan for EPEL i686 / EL7 ? Does anyone know if there is even going to be a multilib attempt or is everything going to stay x86_64 clean ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

6 12

Packaging Office hours at 16:00 UTC today
by Jim Perrin 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

At 10am CST / 16:00 UTC we'll be starting the packaging office hours discussion for SIGs and Variants. if you've got some questions you'd like us to address, please email them to us, or ask your questions via irc in #centos-devel on freenode. If you want to just follow along, we'll be broadcasting the session via http://www.centos.org/media/ -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77

5 27

Cloud Instance SIG
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

hi guys, pushing this a bit forward since there is quite a bit of activity in this area already : http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/CloudInstance while there are quite a few people keen on this subject, I've not added names to the wiki page, please come along and either edit it in ( if you are editgroup members ) or request addition and setup a homepage for yourself on the wiki. going out on a limb here but I am going to propose we get cloud-init out of EPEL into a local repo here so we can mange the entire stack locally for the time being while the larger repo dependancy conversations are ongoing. Also, this Wednesday's OfficeHours on Wed 22nd at 10:00 UTC ( http://wiki.centos.org/OfficeHours ) is dedicated to the Openstack images conversation. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

4 3

CloudStack instance ks files
by Nux! 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

Hi, Waiting further instructions regarding this whole thing. For now there are fully working ks files here: https://github.com/NuxRo/kickstarts Currently waiting for the promised cloud-init 0.7.4 or 0.7.5 and to see how that works with Apache CloudStack. Cheerio, Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro

1 0

Cloud Instance SIG and Vendor ecosystems
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

hi, I'd like to ask everyone for comments on and around working with vendor Ecosystems. We already have relationships in place ( some as old as 4 - 5 years ) where we have worked with vendors to get CentOS images into their service plans; but going forward we should consider what the overall goal here is going to be. Some vendors are easier than others to work with, but is this something we should persue as a part of the CentOS Instance SIG ? I am quite keen to build on the existing relationships with people like AWS, GCE, HPCloud, BrightBox etc and even expand the scope of the vendor involvement in the SIG, but where is everyone else's thought process on this ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

2 3

github foo
by Karanbir Singh 21 Jan '14

21 Jan '14

hi, It would be great if Merge Requests from github.com could be announced on irc #centos-devel in realtime, and a summary of all requests from the day posted to this centos-devel list at midnight UTC. Is something like that possible ? And if so, how does one go about setting that up. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

2 1

Building c6.99.00
by Karanbir Singh 18 Jan '14

18 Jan '14

hi, First community contributed build request for the el7b1 distro! : https://github.com/CentOS/sig-core-bld-seven/pull/1 We're going to build the entire rhel7b1 srpm stock against f19-i686 + rolling build repos into target c6.99.00-i686. Once we have that done, we remove the f19 requirement and rebuild against c6.99.00-i686 into c6.99.01-i686 rolling builds. That should give us a good idea of where things are w.r.t i686. We can then check back into what is needed into the x86_64 tree for multilib, and list the rest of the distro. Once we have that, I'd like to start a conversation around what is needed and how people feel about 'owning' the i686 that isnt needed for multilib x86_64. For now, the churn will start, build logs are going to the centos-build-reports list ( http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-build-reports ) This is what a success report looks like http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-build-reports/2014-January/000005.… the build-id is timestamp to a second's resolution. For centos6 one of the key things we've had to do ( increasingly lesser of ) is to rewind the buildroot states ( aka. git blame, but for the entire distro as a whole ) and patch blame ( aka git blame, for the spec file, rewinding patch layers ). The Build-ID is key to that process. Based on initial builds, we are not going to need any of this anymore ( we've not used it in el6 since the 6.3+updates days ). Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] Repository structures for SIG and variants in the future
by Mike McLean 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org> wrote: > On 01/17/2014 10:06 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > > So how do you intend to solve this without priorities? Especially if > > there is a need for some packages to be compiled with different flags? > > Ideally by eliminating package duplication for the SIG/repos who work > with us, but that's an ivory tower goal that's likely unattainable. > We certainly want to reduce it and box it in. It's clear that we do want to allow overlap, but we need to try to build some sanity into it and avoid it when it is not truly necessary > It will likely be a combination of working with SIGs to coordinate and > cooperate, changing to SCL builds where possible and appropriate, and > documentation to better educate the users. > > SCL builds provide a nice name-spaced way to have multiple versions of > the same packages installed. For example, python27, python33, multiple > php and httpd versions, etc. All of which are mostly impractical with > the older rpm packaging style (see php and httpd for example). This is > by no means a silver bullet, but it does solve a fair chunk of the issue. > Agreed. SCLs are a natural fit here Without SCLs, the SIG will actually be overriding the base package. There are a host of potential problems here, repo priority is the least of it. For major significant changes this could spiral into a dependency nightmare, or simply break things in the base distro. For minor changes (small change, bump release), the such issues would be less likely. For overriding with higher versions, the repo priority plugin would be unnecessary. For release bumps, the SIG would have to track the base closely to stay ahead (granted they should probably do that anyway). At any rate my point is that there are many different reasons to do this and many different ways it which it might be done. Some approaches will be sane, and others very, very unwise. I suspect that we'll wind up with a fairly long policy document delineating these different cases, stating what is allowed, and listing best practices.

1 0

Documentation SIG
by Zachary Oglesby 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

> On 01/10/2014 05:22 PM, Philip Mather wrote: >> Has there been any interest or progress in the suggested Documentation SIG? >> > > Is this proposal to 'write more docs' or > > Is it more of a religious 'everyone should write more docs, we will create resources, make it easier' etc ? > > step1, lets define the problem :) > > - K Having worked on Fedora Docs for many years I would like to make a suggestion that the same model is followed, just in reverse. Many Red Hat docs start as Fedora Documentation and are tweaked to fit RH products. CentOS can use the RH docs as a base and remove the unneeded content. While it will not provide everything CentOS needs for documentation a lot of good content has already been written as in licensed so that it can be reused (CC BY-SA 3.0). I may be making an incorrect assumption, but it is worth mentioning.

4 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel January 2014