devel July 2014

devel@lists.centos.org

82 participants
64 discussions

[PATCH 0/2] A few updates to into_srpm.sh
by Pat Riehecky 10 Jul '14

10 Jul '14

From: Pat Riehecky <riehecky(a)fnal.gov> Just adding a few simple features to into_srpm.sh It now works with software collecions, but only if you want. I've also added a switch for "preserving" the timestamps of srpms created by this script, based on the the commit timestamp. It is off by default as I'm not sure how comfortable various users are with this script making 'old' files. I've found it useful to be able to 'ls -ltr' in a source directory. Pat Riehecky (2): Added switch to preserve timestamps on creation of SRPMs for ls -ltr Now (optionally) supports software collections into_srpm.sh | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

2 3

centos old repos c7.00.02 and c7.00.00
by Farkas Levente 10 Jul '14

10 Jul '14

hi, is there any way to make the old c7.00.02 and c7.00.00 centos repos available? currently many i686 packages missing from c7.00.03 and c7.00.04, but without these packages none of the i686 packages cab be build. regards. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

2 15

[PATCH] don't assume specfile name matches package name in get_sources
by Mike McLean 09 Jul '14

09 Jul '14

Some packages (notably SCL packages) do not specfile=%{name}.spec, so we shouldn't assume or assert this in get_sources.

4 4

[PATCH] kernel: add in a debranding patch
by Akemi Yagi 09 Jul '14

09 Jul '14

Hope this is the correct format for patch submission. Akemi

1 0

EPEL 7 in Extra Repo
by Roozbeh Shafiee 09 Jul '14

09 Jul '14

Hi folks today CentOS 7 released and when do we have epel-release package in extra repository? thanks -- Roozbeh Shafiee Linux/BSD System Administrator and Python Developer RoozbehShafiee.Com

10 16

For those of you asking when epel-release will be included
by Jim Perrin 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

The discussion on EPEL leaving beta is going on currently. You can follow their progress here -> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2014-July/009756.html Once EPEL7 moves out of beta, we'll include the package in -extras. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77

1 0

Thanks everyone
by Karanbir Singh 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

hi, CentOS-7 has been a massive sprint, but we got there in the end with a few blips - nothing that cant be fixed retrospectively. I just wanted to drop a note here and say thanks to everyone who participated in the lead up, the builds, the testin and the delivery. This is, ofcourse, where things begin - we have a great platform with lots of potential to do some really cool stuff. Lets get started, - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

6 5

Back on CentOS-devel to get some git.centos.org improvements
by Nico Kadel-Garcia 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

Morning, folks. Happy July 4th. I'm hopping back onto centos-devel to raise some concerns about git.centos.org components. Overall it's working. There are things I don't like, but as things stand that's *my* problem. These issues, however, affect others, and I don't see a good bugzilla mentioned at git.centos.org itself. 1) Many repositories are being listed with excessive "/" in their names. It messes up alphabetization and can get quite confusing. rpms/docker, for example, is listed as "https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=////rpms/docker.git" 2) The "show_possible_srpms.sh" script relies on checking for the word "import" in the git logs to determine SRPM versions, embedded in the git logs themselves. This raises the risk of *any* commit that uses that word for other reasons to report an invalid SRPM version number. As much as I dislike relying on a git log rather than a signed tag to do a build, please, refine this script to at least grep more carefully for 'import' as the leading word, and ideally sanity check the rest of the import line for the SRPM number. Obligatory XKCD comic about sanitizing inputs: http://xkcd.com/327/ 3) Anyone who attempts to replicate any of the git repositories for improved local access is at risk of corruption or the embedding of trojans in the local repository, due to the lack of GPG signed tags or similar verification of the contents. I realize that the use of the "package.medata" information provides git commit hash tags, which help verification, but that data *itself* can be reset in a trojaned local git repository. Please consider the use of signed GPG tags for actual SRPM updates, rather than merely relying on '[package].metadata, to help assure provenance for people who may test or rebuild security components. Thanks for the attention: I'll stick around for a while, to try and pay back the support for others working with this. Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com>

8 31

Validating Sources
by Karanbir Singh 07 Jul '14

07 Jul '14

hi, given that srpms contain upstream tarballs, in most cases directly linked from upsream; I wonder if its worth while setting up a service that can track git commits, extract the urls for our lookaside tarballs and compare them with the upstream projects's release tarballs. this would be a great addition to the ci.dev.centos.org infra, and could add another data point to the 'can-we-trust-this' mindset. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

2 5

Centpkg: Specfile and link to RPMs
by Brian Stinson 06 Jul '14

06 Jul '14

[PATCH] add in a starter specfile - This spec was used to build v0.1 RPMS RPMS are here; http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/bstinson/Centpkg/ This is still very much alpha software, and the copr is subject to removal at any time, so be sure you're not using those repos for anything important.

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel July 2014