devel June 2014

devel@lists.centos.org

115 participants
109 discussions

SecureBoot, Privatebuilders and logs
by Karanbir Singh 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

hi, The way I have the CentOS Distro buildsystems running at this point, we cant have the secureboot signing run within the same infra ( keys, hsms other things ); The flip side to this is that logs and build results from these machines ( there are 2 in a HA pair, called the kbuilder's ) is not being pushed to buildlogs, and for the short term future - it wont be. There are a couple of technical challenges that are going to prevent this from being solved in the next few weeks. Components impacted are: shim, grub2, kernel. Code for these is still going via git.c.o - grub2, shim and kernel packages with updated centos.cer's replacing the placeholder RH ones are already in git.centos.org. I will have this issue resolved longer term, but for now logs from these builds will not be on buildlogs.centos.org. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

Release file versioning, sunk costs and community involvement
by R P Herrold 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have stayed still on the topic of release naming, as I had little new to offer. TL;DR: my opinion is that Smooge probably has it right suggesting most recently a NEVR of: Name: centos-release Epoch: nil Version: 7.0_201407 Release: 0.201407 And I see Johnny responding to a question about trust from 'Toracat', and "Ned Slider" [each long time community participants], suggest: > I finally get the opportunity to actually work on the > project full time to make it better and somehow I am > purposely recommending something that would somehow sabotage > it? How does that make any sense at all? While 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' of ulterior motives, I have the strong impression that 'behind the scenes', Johnny has been carrying the water and keeping the buildsystem running, as he has since the start of the 6 series for CentOS. Part of that buildsystem is the ability to key off of a release file, which then cascades down into the 'dist' tag, and more. He seems to be an honorable man. Indeed, so are they all, all honorable men, absent indicia to the contrary. BUT notwithstanding the RHT takeover, their number is still few -- I see very few public external 'community' members commits. About three outside people and that is it, in one sample The three external non-source code branches which have activity at the centos 'git' site are: https://git.centos.org/tree/sig-cloud-instance!build-instance.git https://git.centos.org/tree/sig-core!bld-seven.git https://git.centos.org/tree/sig-core!livemedia.git and they may be viewed without pulling the git contents at: https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-cloud-instance!build-instance.git https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-core!livemedia.git https://git.centos.org/summary/sig-cloud-instance!build-instance.git I see overnight commits on: create mode 120000 mock/c7-updates-i386.cfg create mode 100644 mock/c7-updates-i686.cfg create mode 120000 mock/c7-updates-noarch.cfg create mode 100644 mock/c7-updates-x86_64.cfg ============= We have been told that the buildsystem runs off mock configs, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt it If a person wants a centos release file of a given form OTHER than a Version of: Major.Minor.`date +%y%m` My example above would be: Major.Minor_`date +%Y%m` ... it is easy enough to edit the driver sources file for 'centos-release', and the corresponding mock config files via something like: find . -type f -a -exec sed -i \ -e "@Major.Minor.`date +%y%m`(a)Major.Minor_`date +%Y%m`@g" {} \; and submit a diff from the community ============= Until then, there is a 'sunk cost' and the inertia of not touching running code [1]. Time for some community coders to step up and put meat on the bones of the words of alternative forms, or let it be fwiw, I really dislike the use of '.' as the second separatorin Version, and simply changing to '_' and adopting a 4 digit YYYY would go a LONG way to dis-ambiguate possible interpretations, and aid communication to PHB's who dont want to know all the 'inside baseball' bike-shedding, which that thread represents Just some thoughts - -- Russ herrold ps: nice link, Lamar. As a child in Montana, I was tasked with driving cows and their stupid heifers around the pasture and back to the barn, from time to time. The heifers, like those in Hosea, were amazingly stupid but creative (they could slip outside of the fences). I encountered once, and learned from that, to watch to avoid later contact with the 'presents' left by the cows in the fields [1] http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-ma… -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlOpjG0ACgkQMRh1QZtklkRxrQCgxujq72syLiU5GTBEVZ45TibO 7dcAniwvubq4L4X3sjy+e0I/msNDCRFU =Lh5j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

CentOS-7 i686 Spin
by Johnny Hughes 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

We are going to try to build a full i686 tree. This will happen after we do the full release of the actual CentOS-7 x86_64 GA, since RHEL-7 does not have an i686 spin. There is a full i686 kernel in the i686 tree at this point, but it has not been tested, and we won't actually test it until after the CentOS-7 release happens, but the source and binary for the full i686 kernel are available in the build repos here: http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7.00.02/kernel/20140529190808/3.10.0-121.el7.i… We are not completely sure exactly where this full i686 tree will live yet in the CentOS infrastructure (ie, in /7/os/i686/ OR in a SIG repo) since it is not in RHEL-7. All things that the board will need to decide. But, I did want to make sure people know this is on our agenda .. and if there are people that want to help this along, they can get all the mock configs and try to compose a tree, etc, from mock local builds. If things don't build and need patches, then those same people can work on that as well. This list can certainly be used by those same community members to discuss or collaborate that build. If noone does it here, then I will start on it after we get CentOS-7 GA and Zero Day update released, on the trees and the initial issues fixed, etc. Along with this i686 ARCH, we will be doing a ppc64, armv7hl (32-bit), and likely (maybe) ppc (32-bit) and armv8<something> (64-bit) arches. I will announce again on this list when we get closer to actually doing things with code and/or start building those arches. Thanks, Johnny Hughes

2 1

docs for 7
by Karanbir Singh 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

hi, Anyone looking at Docs ? is it going to be easier/harder for us to get the docs compared with 6 ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

Pam x86_64 and i686 have conflicting man pages
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

I tried to install qt-mobility.i686 and qtwebkit.i686 from Fedora so I can install Skype. It demanded a ton of packages and among them was pam.i686. Transaction stopped with error: Transaction check error: file /usr/share/man/man8/faillock.8.gz from install of pam-1.1.8-9.el7.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.1.8-9.el7.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man8/pam_env.8.gz from install of pam-1.1.8-9.el7.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.1.8-9.el7.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man8/pam_faillock.8.gz from install of pam-1.1.8-9.el7.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.1.8-9.el7.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man8/pam_unix.8.gz from install of pam-1.1.8-9.el7.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.1.8-9.el7.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man8/pwhistory_helper.8.gz from install of pam-1.1.8-9.el7.i686 conflicts with file from package pam-1.1.8-9.el7.x86_64 -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant

4 6

[PATCH] Added switch to filter output based on branch
by Pat Riehecky 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

From: Pat Riehecky <riehecky(a)fnal.gov> I also added in Bonnie's patch from http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010841.html Pat Riehecky (1): Added branch filtering lines centos.git.repolist.py | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

2 2

upgrade path from CentOS-6 to 7
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

hi the upgrade path from centos6 to 7 requires some additional content to be released into the centos-6 repos, and then work with specific tools. The important thing here is that sucess of an upgrade will depend on what is installed, how well we can setup docs around the process and how we communicate what is and isnt going to work. I've asked Johnny to push the 2 rpms needed ( into a testing repo for centos6 ) and once its there, we should all try and see if we can scope things up and document the process. As we get closer to finalising the tree's, this is going to become an important piece of the overall stack to test out. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

testing SecureBoot
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi, As a part of what we are doing in the project - and something we want to extend to all content built + signed + delivered via the project resources - I've been working on secureboot facilities and getting the infra around it online. After a bit of hop, step and jump ( and lots of help from Peter Jones at Red Hat ), I've got a baseline test run complete today. This compose is based on a newer-than-GA kernel, so dont stress too far about that, the release media will contain the GA kernel. You can find the tree here : http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/os/x86_64-secureboot/ The tree itself is based on the last good tree we pushed on the 18th June. Please test secureboot widely, its something new, its something we are doing differently than most of the other distro's out there at the moment ( but they will mostly all be doing it like this soon ). This new process is using an EV Code Signing key, validated by Microsoft rather than the first-gen system ( where people would setup their own CA root and request validation ). Feedback here and/or at bugs.centos.org, thanks, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

5 10

CentOS-7 on PowerPC
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi, I'd like to try and see if we can get a secondary arch sort of effort underway to build and deliver a PowerPC ( power7 ? ) distro based on the CentOS-7. Power hardware is hard to come by, and we're going to mostly bootstrap from the powerpc community resources hosted at OSUOSL - but we do have enough resources to get the buildsystem up and keep it running for the ppc64 and ppc tree's. To complement this, we also have a power7 machine for the time being, on loan from a sponsor. But its future is uncertain, we might only have it for another 6 months. The resouces at OSL should, however, persist. Also, as most people on this list will realise - there is quite a lot of momentum inside the project, so the existing contributors dont have enough time to contribute towards another arch as well, so the effort to run this will need to come from the community. So the purpose of my email is two fold, (1) is there enough community interest to undertake this effort ? and (2) are there enough community folks willing to put in the time to make it happen. Ideally some of you lot will have local hardware to test and qa the builds as well. Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

4 11

CentOS 7 Release Schedule
by Shafiee Roozbeh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi community is there any release schedule for CentOS 7 ? not exact schedule I mean... I follow all topics in development mailing list and I know that there is no release schedule announcement by Karanbir and the other guys. I mean approximate schedule... I asked this question because the time interval between RHEL 6.0 and CenOS 6.0 was more than 240 days. (according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS ) . For CentOS 7 we should await this much ? Thanks -- Roozbeh Shafiee Linux/BSD System Administrator and Python Developer RoozbehShafiee.Com

4 4

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
11
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel June 2014