devel October 2015

devel@lists.centos.org

41 participants
38 discussions

armv7hl CentOS status discussion
by Fabian Arrotin 05 Oct '15

05 Oct '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Don't want to start a thread in parallel, as there is already a dedicated mailing list for that. Just as a reminder that some discussions are happening regarding CentOS 7 on armv7hl (raspberry 2, bananapi, odroid, etc) on the arm-dev list ( https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev ) If you want to join the fun, and see CentOS for armv7hl being finalized and released, feel free to discuss that on the list. Kind Regards, (and hope to see you there) - -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYScacACgkQnVkHo1a+xU6juACeM4792fEqcjlodzrp7wIYu++D uvoAn0jwts/imqkuz1/kw2vyiET20WxS =v2f+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

getting better at user engagement / announcements
by Karanbir Singh 04 Oct '15

04 Oct '15

hi, we've had the centos-announce list as the primary announcement format for a long long time, pretty much as long as the project has exited. We've also tried other means but the announce list has stayed the primary format to get offiical news etc. I'm wondering if we can do better, specially since we seem to have a very small percentage of the userbase is in touch with us. How can we better engage with the larger userbase out there ? facebook/twitter also have their limitations, as do blogs. is there something else out there that might help us do a better job of getting news and security info out to users who are most impacted by such issues ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

5 6

C7 i686 kernel driver request
by Peter 04 Oct '15

04 Oct '15

Is it beyond reason to request certain older drivers be enabled in the i686 kernel for CentOS 7 to help support the older hardware that you might find in 32 bit machines? I have an old gateway laptop that I'm trying it out on and it needs the b43 driver enabled. Thanks, Peter

5 9

atomic host upstream: starting up the nightly builds
by Karanbir Singh 02 Oct '15

02 Oct '15

hi, we have a good manifest and build script in place now, having validated it a few times through regular release. should we get the nightly job running for the upstream versions as well ? for anyone who might want to poke it ? the job can run from ci either on a rpm trigger or just nightly at a specific time. regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

[Storage SIG] Adding new package glusterfs-coreutils to the CBS
by Niels de Vos 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Hi Lala, Today I've prepared the glusterfs-coreutils package for the Storage SIG. Everything works fine, but there is one thing I am unable to get done. Maybe I am missing certain permissions? The new glusterfs-coreutils package would need to be added to the CBS. This fails for me: $ koji -p centos \ add-pkg --owner storage \ storage6-gluster-common-candidate glusterfs-coreutils SSLError: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590) Doing scratch-builds works fine, so I doubt that the issue really is the SSL-certificate. Could you let me know if I am doing something wrong, or if it is expected that I can not add new packages? Thanks, Niels

4 7

CentOS SCLo SIG sync-up meeting on #centos-devel (2015-09-30)
by Honza Horak 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

It seems I'll beat the record in short notice, but.. SCLo SIG meeting will be at 15:00 UTC (11:00 EST, 17:00 Brno, 11:00 Boston, 0:00+1d Tokyo, 1:00+1d Brisbane) in #centos-devel on Freenode. = Topics = * are we ready to remove the temp pkgs from CBS? * dist-git repos creation -- anything new? * docker images on the hub based on SCLo collections -- check status Honza

2 1

[RFC] ConfigMgmt SIG
by Julien Pivotto 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Hi all, This is a request for comment about a new SIG for the CentOS project. It is also a call for a Centos Board mentor to jump in. The goal of this proposed SIG is to provide vendor-independent, nicely written packages for automation tools. Targeted automation tools include Puppet, Chef, Ansible... Some of those tools come in a so-called all-in-one package, with everything built-in in some vendor-defined dependencies. I do think that an alternative for those packages should be possible. It is good for the diversity of our ecosystems and would help anyone who wants to fine control dependencies on those packages or patch one particular dependencies to do so. It would also do its best to re-use system dependencies as much as possible (e.g openssl). That SIG will probably be a source of interests for other SIG that could use this work to deploy their work based on community packages. It could optionally depend on some Softwares Collections if needed. My personal interest is to target Puppet 4 on ContOS 7, and that would be the first objective, but this SIG is open to any Open-Source Configuration Management tool. About me: I am a sysadmin using CentOS daily. I operate on several infrastructures of different scales mixing several automation/orchestration tools. I come from Belgium and I have been involved as a speaker at previous CentOS DOJO's in Brussels and Paris. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Open-Source Consultant V_/_ Inuits - https://www.inuits.eu

3 4

CATPR - Community Approved Third Party Repos
by Carl George 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Howdy, There are several "release" packages in the Extras repository for SIGs and third party repositories. centos-release-virt-common centos-release-openstack epel-release Currently there are no guidelines for other third party repositories to be included, so I wrote this document. https://wiki.centos.org/CarlGeorge/CATPR What is this document missing? Are there any additional rules that need to be added for a third party repository to be considered? Also, if these guidelines are accepted, what does the approval process look like? Obviously repositories would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but who has the final say on whether a repository is approved or not? Carl George IUS CoreDev Team

6 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel October 2015