devel February 2016

devel@lists.centos.org

48 participants
50 discussions

Koji and aarch64 update
by Thomas Oulevey 24 Feb '16

24 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear All, Following FOSDEM discussion, I owe an update on the koji development for aarch64. Thanks to Fabian, at this we have a builder configured and we are able to build on specific targets for aarch64. I tested few glusterfs builds to ensure all operations are working well and no issue was found. At this time we will support only new builds, it won't be possible to rebuild an old NVR. A future koji update may help us with this requirement. ("merge scratch build" feature seems absent from latest release, I discussed it with Mike at Fosdem, I'll send an update when I have more news). In practice it means you will have to bump your release for getting aarch64 The last missing bit for enabling aarch64 for SIGs is to have a common URL for all arches. In koji an external repository can be defined with a $arch paramter in the url. http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/os/$arch/ Unfortunately at this time we have not a single URL that presents all $arch (previous link misses x86_64). After discussing with the team, the easier way would be to add a x86_64 link (e.g : http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/os/x86_64 pointing to http://mirror.centos.org/centos-7/7/os/x86_64/ ) for the internal koji mirror as it would solve all our issues. The pro is this solution will allow us to reconfigure koji once and be compatible for all future arches. The con is that mock configs generated by koji won't work for external users. Let me know if you have a better idea or some concerns. As soon as we agree on a solution I'll be able to enable it for the Storage SIG glusterfs targets as Niels De Vos "agreed" to be our first user :) - -- Thomas 'alphacc' Oulevey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlbERAQACgkQXU8JKmZfxovZCwD/S6B6A4ICpDAKg+IeIlMhS06y 6/vPh8FyhRMTahzdU2oA/0j/SwEBr6zYOm7RP42petsNvU+fL+FKoJFEnQFqQuLn =EGqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

rebuilding packages for ppc
by Bryson Lee 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

In order to get an in-house 32-bit ppc application running on CentOS 7, I've been rebuilding a number of SRPM's from 7.2.1511 on vault.centos.org. I'm down to three packages (glibc, gcc, and mesa) needing rebuilds to resolve "Protected multilib" errors when installing the Yum group that defines my application's "platform". Each of these three is failing to rebuild in different ways, so I'm looking for some pointers as to what I'm doing wrong. For glibc, the failure is that rpmbuild finds a number of installed but unpackaged files in the buildroot under /usr/lib/debug. I've tried setting a debuginfo-related macro in the mock.cfg, but I don't see that setting in the glibc mock.cfg on buildlogs.centos.org, so I think that might be a red herring. For gcc, mock fails to set up the chroot because it can't find a package to provide /usr/lib64/libc.so (which is called out explicitly in a BuildRequires), even though the mock.cfg includes a repo containing glibc-devel.ppc64 and glibc.ppc64. For mesa, the configure test for DRI3PROTO fails with dri3proto >= 1.0 not found. The F19 ppc backing repo I'm using has packages for Mesa 9.x, whereas 7.2.1511 is at Mesa 10.x. I'm guessing that some sort of manual intervention is needed to bootstrap across the major-version bump, but I haven't been able to work out the sequence. I realize that ppc RPM's are in the cards, but I'm trying to do as much risk-reduction as I can due to an internal deadline. Any hints as to what I'm missing on these three packages would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -Bryson ________________________________ This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any attachments.

2 5

Reminder: Virt SIG meeting today at 1500 UTC (note changed time)
by George Dunlap 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Just a reminder, we'll be having the regular Virt SIG meeting today at the new time -- 1500 UTC. -George

1 0

Where does Koji get the %{dist} macro for a build?
by Shatil Rafiullah 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

For packages built with Koji, where does the the %{?dist} macro come from?

3 3

Request for devcloud account
by Mohammed Zeeshan 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

Hi, I need a devcloud account to deploy a pulp/crane setup on the cloud. Thanks -- *Mohammed Zeeshan Ahmed, * B.E Computer Science Engineering Certified IT & Cloud Architect & RHCSA +919986458839 Bengaluru, India

2 1

Request to Join Altarch SIG - AArch64
by Steve Capper 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Hello, I would like to join the AltArch Special Interest Group for AArch64 please. I am a software engineer at ARM working mainly on the kernel and virtualisation, but would be able to relay queries about other areas to my colleagues and potentially involve them too in future. In the office I have an AMD Seattle system for my development work. Thanks, -- Steve Capper

2 1

CentOS Atomic SIG Meeting Minutes 2015-12-03
by Jason Brooks 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Last week the meetbot died during our CentOS Atomic SIG meeting. This is the log from the meeting, and the one action item we set. See you at the meeting tomorrow at 16:00 UTC in #centos-devel. Jason Actions: jbrooks to poke around about upstream cockpit-docker exclusion 2015-12-03T16:02:30 <jbrooks> #startmeeting CentOS Atomic SIG 2015-12-03T16:02:30 <centbot> Meeting started Thu Dec 3 16:02:30 2015 UTC. The chair is jbrooks. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 2015-12-03T16:02:30 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 2015-12-03T16:02:31 <dustymabe> for thanksgiving 2015-12-03T16:02:58 <dustymabe> lalatend1M: meeting time 2015-12-03T16:03:01 *** dneary <dneary!~dneary@Maemo/community/docmaster/dneary> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:03:07 <jbrooks> #chair dustymabe maxamillion kbsingh lalatend1M jzb 2015-12-03T16:03:07 <centbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jbrooks jzb kbsingh lalatend1M maxamillion 2015-12-03T16:03:32 <jbrooks> who else? 2015-12-03T16:03:40 <tmrts> o/ 2015-12-03T16:03:53 <jbrooks> #chair tmrts 2015-12-03T16:03:53 <centbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jbrooks jzb kbsingh lalatend1M maxamillion tmrts 2015-12-03T16:04:27 <jbrooks> #topic CentOS Atomic Host Rebuild status 2015-12-03T16:04:49 * lalatend1M i shere 2015-12-03T16:05:01 <jbrooks> We had a rebuild release on Nov 24 2015-12-03T16:05:11 <jbrooks> That was the last of the "7.1" rebuilds 2015-12-03T16:05:33 <jbrooks> Currently, I'm iterating through getting the rebuild based on the new centos pkgs built 2015-12-03T16:05:38 *** lalatend1M is now known as lalatenduM 2015-12-03T16:05:47 *** jfilak <jfilak!jfilak@nat/redhat/x-tnaxbhzqcclqnkyz> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) 2015-12-03T16:06:09 <jbrooks> I'm using the CR repo and sort of a extras-next temp repo set up by Johnny 2015-12-03T16:06:37 <dustymabe> nice 2015-12-03T16:06:50 <jbrooks> So that's moving along decently 2015-12-03T16:07:07 *** kbreeman <kbreeman!~rooot(a)64.238.140.42> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:07:22 *** jchaloup <jchaloup!Jan@nat/redhat/x-irqgrnsnztmbmexf> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:07:34 <hhorak> RemiFedora: kbsingh: guys here are working on it, but they need to move a lot of data and re-set up new server. 2015-12-03T16:07:54 <jbrooks> That brings up sort of a subtopic -- there's been some interest expressed in adding the cockpit-docker and cockpit-kubernetes pkgs into our rebuild 2015-12-03T16:08:12 <kbsingh> hhorak: time to introduce some automation 2015-12-03T16:08:21 <hhorak> RemiFedora: I'd like to make the official announcements together for el6 and el7, and el6 is still not ready. 2015-12-03T16:08:22 <kbsingh> hhorak: if we can do something to help, do tell 2015-12-03T16:08:40 <jbrooks> RHEL Atomic doesn't include these, so that'd be a divergence, but the pkgs themselves are in the standard centos repos 2015-12-03T16:08:43 <dustymabe> jbrooks: and those packages aren't in RHELAH 2015-12-03T16:08:45 <dustymabe> ? 2015-12-03T16:09:06 <kbsingh> are they shipped as containers ? 2015-12-03T16:09:09 *** lars_kurth <lars_kurth!chrome@nat/citrix/x-sexywyygzwzdqpcu> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:09:14 <jbrooks> dustymabe, Right, not in the host, but are available, as in, not from the CBS or something 2015-12-03T16:09:15 <kbsingh> i.e why are they released if they are not included in the AH 2015-12-03T16:09:15 *** fzdarsky_ is now known as fzdarsky 2015-12-03T16:09:32 <jbrooks> They, like cockpit-bridge and cockpit-shell, control host things 2015-12-03T16:09:46 <hhorak> kbsingh: well, the sclo6 packages are still not signed/released, right? if they were, we can point people to use those, as RemiFedora proposed :) 2015-12-03T16:09:51 <jbrooks> Really, only cockpit-ws, the web app, is containerizable, as I understand it 2015-12-03T16:09:55 <dustymabe> jbrooks: was a decision made to exclude them from RHEL-AH? 2015-12-03T16:10:10 <dustymabe> or would they consider including them as well? 2015-12-03T16:10:22 <jbrooks> dustymabe, I don't know, I assume so, since they're not there. I don't know why 2015-12-03T16:10:42 <kbsingh> hhorak: they were added to the configs last night, but the job didnt run through cleanly. 2015-12-03T16:10:47 <jbrooks> Maybe not fitting the SKU vision or something? 2015-12-03T16:10:49 <kbsingh> hhorak: i will get them out tomorrow 2015-12-03T16:10:55 <dustymabe> might be worth asking - if there is a good enough reason then that might be a good reason we shouldn't do it 2015-12-03T16:11:11 <jbrooks> OK 2015-12-03T16:11:26 <jbrooks> #action jbrooks to poke around about upstream cockpit-docker exclusion 2015-12-03T16:12:13 <jbrooks> Anything else on this topic? 2015-12-03T16:12:36 <hhorak> kbsingh: ok, thx.. I'll at least point people to el7 builds at least :) 2015-12-03T16:12:49 <dustymabe> jbrooks: nope 2015-12-03T16:13:54 <jbrooks> #topic Four Week Build 2015-12-03T16:14:03 <jbrooks> So, I haven't done anything new on this front 2015-12-03T16:14:23 <kbsingh> me neither 2015-12-03T16:14:24 <jbrooks> I do see that the fedora two week has been firming up, and that's important for the four week 2015-12-03T16:14:55 <jbrooks> The trick now is figuring out a semi-automated flow of the fedora two week "atomic" pkgs into the CBS 2015-12-03T16:14:56 <dustymabe> yeah. honestly I wish I had more time to devote to this, but i've been stretched thin 2015-12-03T16:15:33 <jbrooks> OK, I figured I'd bump it up in ppl's minds, at least :) 2015-12-03T16:15:55 <jbrooks> Other topics before open floor? lalatenduM, do you have adb-related issues? 2015-12-03T16:15:57 *** deryni-work <deryni-work!~ereisner(a)63-148-88-20.dia.static.qwest.net> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:16:12 <lalatenduM> jbrooks: yeah 2015-12-03T16:16:21 <jbrooks> #topic ADB 2015-12-03T16:16:36 <lalatenduM> is centos 7.2 out? 2015-12-03T16:16:43 <kbsingh> we have an arm build getting ready - and quite a few people have expressed interest in getting atomic host there as well - is that something we might want to take up in the scope of this group ? 2015-12-03T16:16:43 <jbrooks> Not yet 2015-12-03T16:16:48 *** Humble <Humble!hchiramm@nat/redhat/x-sqybcsspxrljnigq> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:17:03 <dustymabe> kbsingh: I have thought about that before.. I like the idea 2015-12-03T16:17:10 <kbsingh> not yet, but eta is a week or so from now 2015-12-03T16:17:10 <lalatenduM> kbsingh: yup I think so 2015-12-03T16:17:14 *** oere <oere!~oere(a)botanix.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.) 2015-12-03T16:17:14 <jbrooks> kbsingh, sure 2015-12-03T16:17:30 <kbsingh> the ostree patches needed to support uboot already exist... 2015-12-03T16:17:30 <lalatenduM> I am going to do a ADB build once 7.2 is out 2015-12-03T16:17:46 <jbrooks> lalatenduM, cool 2015-12-03T16:17:50 <lalatenduM> but looks like we have to manage with scratch build 2015-12-03T16:17:59 <kbsingh> lalatenduM: at the moment, the CR repos have all the content already seeded up, so if you can use taht - it might give you a base to test / trial waiting for main line release 2015-12-03T16:18:03 <lalatenduM> as there s a SCm error with teh non scratch builds 2015-12-03T16:18:25 <lalatenduM> is a scm error* 2015-12-03T16:18:28 <lalatenduM> kbsingh: yeah 2015-12-03T16:18:42 *** vpavlin <vpavlin!vpavlin@nat/redhat/x-mikwxkdugihlswrr> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:18:48 <kbsingh> i think we will get the scm side of things figured out in the coming days as well, once the git <-> Accounts.centos.org stuff is in place, the git stuff becomes easy ( and the plan is to get that git stuff integrated in the next 10 days or so) 2015-12-03T16:18:54 <jbrooks> lalatenduM, Is there a bug for that error that we can link here 2015-12-03T16:19:01 <lalatenduM> kbsingh: cool 2015-12-03T16:19:11 <lalatenduM> jbrooks: good idea I will file one. 2015-12-03T16:19:23 <kbsingh> jbrooks: tl'dr, cbs needs scm == git.centos.org; but we have no clear path to hosting non rpm content for sig's yet 2015-12-03T16:19:24 <jbrooks> Anything more on that? 2015-12-03T16:19:25 <lalatenduM> I had sent a mail to centos-devel about it 2015-12-03T16:19:37 <jbrooks> Ah, ok 2015-12-03T16:19:41 <kbsingh> ie. we need to get the auth layer in place, then see how that maps to branch names, sig space etc. 2015-12-03T16:20:16 <lalatenduM> Also planning to build teh openshift origin docker image to include in the adb box, but thats not a blocker 2015-12-03T16:20:46 <jbrooks> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-November/014034.html 2015-12-03T16:20:47 <lalatenduM> till we have a better caching solution for docker image 2015-12-03T16:20:57 <jbrooks> ^ that's the centos-devel msg, I believe 2015-12-03T16:21:03 <lalatenduM> jbrooks: yup 2015-12-03T16:21:20 <jbrooks> OK, any more on that? 2015-12-03T16:21:28 <lalatenduM> nope I am done 2015-12-03T16:21:38 <jbrooks> #topic Open Floor 2015-12-03T16:21:42 <tmrts> I'd like to talk about replacing cloud-init 2015-12-03T16:21:54 <jbrooks> tmrts, Cool, go ahead 2015-12-03T16:22:05 <tmrts> As you guys know I developed https://github.com/tmrts/flamingo to be a replacement for cloud-init 2015-12-03T16:22:32 <tmrts> We were in the process of integrating it to Atomic Host but I've had some health issues 2015-12-03T16:23:09 *** vpavlin <vpavlin!vpavlin@nat/redhat/x-mikwxkdugihlswrr> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:23:11 <tmrts> I was away from the SIG for a while and I'd like to complete the process if the intention is still the same 2015-12-03T16:23:50 <jbrooks> tmrts, Have you made any test images w/ flamingo built-in? 2015-12-03T16:24:24 *** hhorak <hhorak!hhorak@nat/redhat/x-vkqtjbqanjtplabh> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.) 2015-12-03T16:24:25 <tmrts> I tried to rebuild the image with flamingo rpm (both on copr and centos build system) but I've had libvirtd issues Is there any developments on the build system for the images or is it still done through scripts? 2015-12-03T16:24:48 <jbrooks> Still scripts 2015-12-03T16:25:05 <jbrooks> Point me at your copr or cbs location and I can try to do a build 2015-12-03T16:25:19 <tmrts> jbrooks, I performed integration tests with the custom built image but It needs to be done again as I understand there was updates 2015-12-03T16:25:57 <dustymabe> did any of us ever evaluate the coreos rewrite of cloud-init 2015-12-03T16:26:06 <tmrts> in cbs you can find it with atomic-testing label and I'll link the copr in a sec 2015-12-03T16:26:16 <dustymabe> if we could combine efforts then I think we could gain momentum 2015-12-03T16:26:36 <tmrts> I've had discussions with the core-os team 2015-12-03T16:26:47 <kbsingh> the intel guys are also redoing things, again in go. for their clear containers effort 2015-12-03T16:26:52 *** juergh <juergh!~juergh(a)adsl-84-227-41-33.adslplus.ch> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.) 2015-12-03T16:27:04 <jbrooks> dustymabe, Not me -- it'd be good to hook up w/ the fedora cloud folks and do some sort of info/testing roundup of these options 2015-12-03T16:27:18 <jbrooks> ID the issues w/ cloud-init, the options, etc. 2015-12-03T16:27:24 <tmrts> They want to merge efforts as well. But, for us it would mean jumping on coreos-cloudinit and contributing to it so that we can use it 2015-12-03T16:27:56 <jbrooks> tmrts, does it fit w/ what you've been doing? 2015-12-03T16:28:01 <tmrts> #info copr repository https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/tamertas/flamingo/ 2015-12-03T16:28:07 <jbrooks> thx 2015-12-03T16:28:36 <tmrts> jbrooks, do you mean getting in touch with fedora folks? 2015-12-03T16:28:39 <dustymabe> tmrts: nice so you have reached out to them? 2015-12-03T16:28:45 <dustymabe> them == coreos 2015-12-03T16:28:49 <jbrooks> tmrts, the coreos effort 2015-12-03T16:29:01 <jbrooks> Like, does merging efforts make sense to you? 2015-12-03T16:29:12 <tmrts> dustymabe, they've reached out to me 2015-12-03T16:29:19 <dustymabe> oh, even better 2015-12-03T16:29:32 <lalatenduM> cool 2015-12-03T16:30:11 <tmrts> I evaluated coreos-cloudinit and basically they hardwired it to coreos (some parts). ultimately a joint effort would be better 2015-12-03T16:30:42 <tmrts> But, we'd need to contribute to coreos-cloudinit and make it work for us 2015-12-03T16:31:10 *** sshnaidm <sshnaidm!sshnaidm@nat/redhat/x-yzjqlttdrtvsnbca> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 2015-12-03T16:31:13 <dustymabe> tmrts: right. so what I would say is that it's going to be hard to convince them to abandon what they have. what I would propose is that we actually evaluate what they have, remove the hardwired parts, but still allow them to achieve their goals with those hardwirings 2015-12-03T16:31:18 *** jstribny <jstribny!jstribny@nat/redhat/x-cmyzhkpgavztclxi> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving) 2015-12-03T16:31:32 <dustymabe> and then we can together launch a new project together with them 2015-12-03T16:31:39 *** rssfed23 <rssfed23!~rssfed23(a)91.217.86.20> has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) 2015-12-03T16:31:43 <dustymabe> under some different branding 2015-12-03T16:31:44 <tmrts> dustymabe, absolutely it makes no sense for them to abandon it 2015-12-03T16:32:21 <dustymabe> honestly if we get centos and coreos on-board many others will follow suit 2015-12-03T16:32:24 <dustymabe> IMHO 2015-12-03T16:32:40 <dustymabe> because many people (myself included) view cloud-init from ubuntu as dead 2015-12-03T16:33:17 <dustymabe> thoughts from anyone else on this? 2015-12-03T16:33:24 <jbrooks> Agreed, though we really need to get fedora into the loop -- that's where centos ultimately comes from. For the rebuild, certainly, and we've been envisioning the four-week in that way, as well 2015-12-03T16:34:10 <jbrooks> Do we have a next action on this? 2015-12-03T16:34:12 <dustymabe> jbrooks: agree 2015-12-03T16:34:23 <dustymabe> probably would be better to do it in fedora first 2015-12-03T16:34:48 <dustymabe> tmrts: are you interested in combining efforts with coreos or are you more interested in flamingo as it exists today? 2015-12-03T16:35:09 <dustymabe> you never know. they might even be willing to keep the flamingo name for the launch of the combined effort 2015-12-03T16:35:20 <dustymabe> but most likely would want to have the new project be based largely on their code 2015-12-03T16:35:28 <dustymabe> makes sense since it is already being used and testeed 2015-12-03T16:36:00 <tmrts> dustymabe, Here's my viewpoint a collaboration would be very helpful, but as it stands it would mean splitting flamingo into parts and contribute it to coreos-cloudinit 2015-12-03T16:36:31 *** foxhunt72 is now known as foxhunt_away 2015-12-03T16:36:39 <dustymabe> right 2015-12-03T16:37:02 <dustymabe> which I think probably makes the most sense, because it is already in production and being used 2015-12-03T16:37:25 <kbsingh> i need to rebase away to another thing, thanks fuys 2015-12-03T16:37:26 <kbsingh> guys even 2015-12-03T16:37:28 <dustymabe> if it was the other way around where flamingo was out there and had users and coreos didn't then probably would go the other way 2015-12-03T16:37:47 <dustymabe> tmrts: any chance you will be at fosdem? 2015-12-03T16:38:19 <tmrts> dustymabe, yeah I agree with you it is battle-tested 2015-12-03T16:38:34 <tmrts> dustymabe, unfortunately I won't be able to attend 2015-12-03T16:38:53 <dustymabe> maybe the architecture needs rework (to match your design better), but most of the code will probably come from coreos-cloudinit 2015-12-03T16:38:58 <dustymabe> which is actually probably a good thing for us 2015-12-03T16:39:16 <dustymabe> since they probably support way more functionality at this point (not sure on this, just guessing) 2015-12-03T16:39:55 <dustymabe> tmrts: so I guess what I am asking is "is the proposal I made acceptable to you?" 2015-12-03T16:40:00 <dustymabe> since you wrote flamingo 2015-12-03T16:41:04 <tmrts> dustymabe, the most acceptable choice would be to create a new organization(or effort) and merge what they have with flamingo along with them 2015-12-03T16:41:27 <dustymabe> right. and what I am proposing is that we do that 2015-12-03T16:41:47 <tmrts> dustymabe, yes I agree with you 2015-12-03T16:41:52 <dustymabe> where the new org has probably most of the new code coming from coreos-cloud-init and some of it coming from flamingo 2015-12-03T16:42:24 <dustymabe> either way we want to merge our efforts 2015-12-03T16:42:33 <dustymabe> some of the coreos devs live in NYC 2015-12-03T16:42:39 <dustymabe> and I see them often at meetups 2015-12-03T16:44:07 *** centbot <centbot!~centbot@centos/bot/centbot> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:44:08 <dustymabe> and how long ago was that? 2015-12-03T16:44:41 *** Bahhumbug <Bahhumbug!jrd@serentos/admin/jrd> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:44:44 <tmrts> I replied that we'd like to merge efforts as well and what do you think the next action should be 2015-12-03T16:45:06 <Bahhumbug> My apologies for dropping the bot in the middle of your meeting. I don't believe meetbot will be able to recover gracefully from this action. 2015-12-03T16:45:15 <tmrts> this was a week ago and he said that we should start by contributing to coreos-ci 2015-12-03T16:45:34 <dustymabe> tmrts: ok cool 2015-12-03T16:46:05 <dustymabe> basically what we need to do is float the idea of the combined organization with them 2015-12-03T16:46:34 <dustymabe> and as long as they understand that is our goal and they agree it is their goal too then I don't see any problem with contributing code to their GH for now 2015-12-03T16:46:40 <Bahhumbug> If anyone needs raw bot logs from the meeting (sans the ~2 minutes it was down, obviously) please ping me and I will be happy to provide them. 2015-12-03T16:46:46 <dustymabe> to ease the migration to the new org 2015-12-03T16:47:06 <tmrts> I'll mention that we'd be more comfortable with a combined organization and help with the migration 2015-12-03T16:47:16 <dustymabe> Bahhumbug: jbrooks will probably need them to post to the list 2015-12-03T16:47:19 *** paragan <paragan!~paragan@unaffiliated/paragan> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) 2015-12-03T16:47:27 <dustymabe> tmrts: feel free to add me to the emails 2015-12-03T16:47:41 <tmrts> yeah I'll cc you 2015-12-03T16:47:56 <dustymabe> thanks 2015-12-03T16:47:56 <Bahhumbug> Ping me at the end of your meeting and I'll make them available. I no longer camp this channel. 2015-12-03T16:47:56 <jbrooks> Bahhumbug, yes please, I'm at jbrooks(a)redhat.com 2015-12-03T16:47:56 <dustymabe> I like this strategy 2015-12-03T16:47:56 <Bahhumbug> Again, my apologies. 2015-12-03T16:47:59 *** Bahhumbug <Bahhumbug!jrd@serentos/admin/jrd> has left #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:48:12 *** lars_kurth <lars_kurth!chrome@nat/citrix/x-lkwhcqeojptdzhen> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:48:24 <dustymabe> tmrts++ 2015-12-03T16:48:47 <dustymabe> tmrts: how much time do you have to devote to this effort? 2015-12-03T16:49:02 <dustymabe> is it a primary thing or is it something that is a side project for you? 2015-12-03T16:49:50 *** jchaloup <jchaloup!~Jan(a)147.229.63.11> has joined #centos-devel 2015-12-03T16:49:51 <dustymabe> once we get a clear path to success what we can do is promote what we are doing and get more people interested in the project 2015-12-03T16:50:32 <tmrts> dustymabe, I was worked on it during the summer as part of GSoC. At the moment it is a side-project. That is one of my concerns as well I might not be able to devote enough time 2015-12-03T16:51:00 *** outi <outi!~outi(a)HSI-KBW-217-008-049-015.hsi.kabelbw.de> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving) 2015-12-03T16:51:15 <dustymabe> tmrts: got ya 2015-12-03T16:51:20 <dustymabe> ok I'll keep that in mind 2015-12-03T16:52:02 <jbrooks> OK, are we all set for now? 2015-12-03T16:52:12 <dustymabe> I think so 2015-12-03T16:52:17 <kbsingh> can Arrfab / Evolution, not push the logs directly to www.centos.org ? 2015-12-03T16:52:18 <tmrts> yes I think so as well 2015-12-03T16:52:29 <jbrooks> I guess there isn't a meeting to end? 2015-12-03T16:52:37 <jbrooks> #endmeeting

1 1

Thanks for CentOS 7 ppc64!
by Bryson Lee 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Just a quick note to thank all involved in the ppc64 AltArch effort! Was able to get one of our IBM 812L’s up and running very quickly after importing the Everything ISO into our Cobbler environment. Next I’ll try rebuilding some of the packages that we need for 32-bit ppc… Thanks again for all the great work! Regards, -Bryson ________________________________ This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any attachments.

3 8

ppc64le. Team looking for opal-prd package
by Bill Buros 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

From peers working with CentOS on Power8, /"I am trying to install OPAL-PRD on cent-os. Do you know where to get opal-prd package ?"/ Presently opal-prd is not available in the CentOS repos or in EPEL, but is expected in a future release of RHEL. In the meantime, it is possible to build the rpm from source and install on CentOS. Latest source rpm : https://hegdevasant.fedorapeople.org/opal-prd/v5/opal-prd-5.1.13-1.fc22.src… Thanks to Vasant Hegde for pointer to files.

4 5

seven.centos.org
by Karanbir Singh 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

hi We have seven.centos.org which runs more or less as an announcement and community blog - but the word 'seven' in there highlights its focus around CentOS Linux 7. As we promote that, this mindset goes with it. Am wondering if we need a better worded name for the blog, or to move it under www.centos.org/blog/ ( yet retain the lose'ish perms for contributors.ie. SIGs are welcome too ) ? Regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel February 2016