devel April 2022

devel@lists.centos.org

31 participants
27 discussions

ksplice and CentOS
by Karanbir Singh 25 Sep '25

25 Sep '25

hi guys, lots of people on this list are keen on contributing to the CentOS effort - and one place where we could, as a group of people, make a massive difference is being able to deliver a ksplice upgrade model. A couple of people have started in silo's to try and get something together but I feel it might be a good time to try and see if we can do somethng as a group. Do we have people on the list who find the idea of rebootless kernel upgrades interesting ? Is there some desire to try and make that happen within the CentOS Ecosystem ? - KB

24 47

anaconda dependency calculation?
by Nicholas Byrne 04 Aug '25

04 Aug '25

Hi all, I'm trying to find a tool that calculates all dependencies for a specific package or group of packages for use with CentOS 5 (beta) with the intention of putting together a custom single CD build of CentOS 5. With CentOS 4 i used a python script that used the hdrlist module to find all dependencies which borrowed code from a number of sources. I've looked at yumdownloader and how it checks dependencies (using the --resolve option) but if i pass it the list of packages defined in say the Base and the Core yum groups which generally form an absolute minimal install i end up with about 200 packages. If i do a custom install (using beta 1 disks) and deselect everything i end up with over 300 packages. So i'm guessing anaconda calculates dependencies in a slightly different way, can anyone point me to files/code where i should be looking to find out? Thanks very much in advance for help Nick This e-mail is the property of Quadriga Worldwide Ltd, intended for the addressee only and confidential. Any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from Quadriga may be monitored. Quadriga cannot guarantee any message delivery method is secure or error-free. Information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. We do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in this message and/or attachment that arise as a result of transmission. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Quadriga.

6 11

forums + portal for {lang}.centos.org sites
by Karanbir Singh 16 Aug '24

16 Aug '24

Hi, Earlier in the evening today Ralph, Fabian and I had a chat about the present state of the language subsites. This email sort of summarises the main issue ( s/w ). We seem to have run into a slight technical hitch with punbb/fluxbb. They dont support LDAP as a backend. And we had decided a few months back that all new rollouts must have ldap backend so we can rollin CentOS-DS / openldap based backend. So we need to look at alternatives, and since the primary focus of these international sites is going be forums : Here is a shortlist ( if there is anything else that people are aware of, please add to this list ) - phpBB - SMF - Fudforum - phorum - fluxbb Requirements: - Must be able to scale ( couple of hundred thousand msgs ) - Must be able to handle ldap auth ( if it cant, whats involved in writing the ldap-auth portion ) - Must address the specific requirements raised by the present www.centos.org forum users ( Can you please fill this section in ? ) - Must support all languages we need ( pure utf8 support would be good ) - Secure - Skin'able Nice to have: - Capable of running multiple instances from a single deployment - responsive community :D Things we will need to do: - Decide on what s/w to use. - Give the ArtWork people enough time to get the look & feel sorted. - Migrate newbb forums from www.centos.org to $system ( hey, english is a language too :D ). - Migrate fr.centos.org into the final s/w - setup {de/es/ja/it/pt_br}.centos.org Actions: Ralph and Fabian are going to work on setting up a test ldap server, once that is online we will then start by installing into our test-vm-farm the various s/w to eval them. If anyone would like to help, please feel free to jump right in. I'll setup a wiki page for this issue, which might be a good place to track progress. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq

22 81

Few questions on cloud images
by Pino Toscano 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Hello, I have few questions related to the cloud images provides for c8s and c9s, i.e.: - https://cloud.centos.org/centos/8-stream/x86_64/images/ - https://cloud.centos.org/centos/9-stream/x86_64/images/ 1) I see the c9s images are regularly updated, while the c8s images not; is this wanted, or simply a mistake/miss somewhere? If so, will they be kept up-to-date just like the c9s images? 2) are the Vagrant images there officially supported? Let's say you use one, and find a bug; then check on a "classic" installation (baremetal/VM), and the bug isn't there; can users report problems in those cases? 3) would it be possible to have either unversioned or "-latest" symlinks for the latest versions of all the files (i.e. images, checksums, etc)? This way, it will be much easier for users to fetch the latest versions with no need to change URLs frequently. Of course, the assumption is that users of this are always willing to use the latest version. Thanks! -- Pino Toscano

7 14

Proposal: CentOS Public Board Meetings
by Rich Bowen 07 Jan '23

07 Jan '23

In January of 2021, the CentOS Board of Directors opened our monthly meetings to all SIG chairs, in a first step towards more transparent governance. We wanted to see how the larger audience changed the meeting dynamics, if at all, as well as welcoming a broader pool of voices. We are now ready for the second part of this process. Starting in the August meeting, we will be inviting the entire CentOS community to attend these meetings. Due to the nature of the Internet, we won’t be simply publishing the meeting URL, as this often leads to disruptive behavior in meetings, as I am sure many of you have experienced. Rather, in the week before the meeting, we’ll send, to this list, a way to request an invitation to the meeting. In this way, we hope to limit the incidence of such disruptions, while also making the meeting available to anyone who wishes to attend. We will be working on the rules of engagement for these meetings, but they will be, at minimum: * Wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking * Respect the Chair when told your time to speak is over - this will allow us to remain on agenda, and complete the meetings in the allotted time * In the event that there are Board-confidential topics, these will be put at the end of the meeting, in Executive Session, and guests will be asked to leave. We hope to minimize these items, but they do sometimes happen. The most common scenarios in which this may happen are personnel issues, or information that Red Hat wishes to share with the Board, but is not yet public. * Muting of participants, or, in extreme situations, ejection from the meeting, is at the sole discretion of the Chair. * Meetings will be recorded, and published to YouTube (possibly with edits/redactions, as approved by the Directors). Thus, by joining the meeting you consent to have your presence at the meeting, and anything you say during the meeting, made public. Because there will seldom be time for Q&A during the meeting itself, we plan to add a post-meeting IRC office hours session for followup questions. This will probably be scheduled for a week after the board meeting, to allow time to publish meeting minutes We welcome your comments about the above proposal, and thank you all for your patience as we implement these changes to our governance process.

8 27

RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term
by Josh Boyer 20 May '22

20 May '22

Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux release cadence, RHEL 9 development is starting to wrap up with the spring 2022 release coming soon. That means planning for the next release will start in earnest in the very near future. As some of you may know, Red Hat has been using both Bugzilla and Jira via issues.redhat.com for RHEL development for several years. Our intention is to move to using issues.redhat.com only for the major RHEL releases after RHEL 9. What does this mean for Fedora and CentOS? This discussion is in part to figure that out. Based on some very brief analysis, the following should hold: - RHEL customers should continue to file support cases through the Red Hat Customer portal, which will remain consistent regardless of the backend tooling used. - There is no imminent retirement of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance being planned at this time. RHEL 7, 8, and 9 will continue to use bugzilla in some form and RHEL 9 has a very long lifecycle. - Fedora Linux and EPEL have their own Bugzilla product families and are not directly impacted in their own workflows by the choice to use only issues.redhat.com for RHEL. - There will be impacts on existing documentation that provide guidance on requesting things from RHEL in various places like EPEL. We will be happy to help adjust these. - CentOS Stream contribution and bug reporting workflows will be adjusted to use issues.redhat.com instead of bugzilla in the relevant places. This should apply to all versions of CentOS Stream for a unified contributor workflow. This will happen gradually as we discover the best workflow to use. If there are other impacts that you can think of, please raise them on this thread. We’d like to ensure we’re covering as much as possible as this rolls out. josh

7 14

CentOS Stream 8 and 9 - KDE un-updateable for a week
by Troy Dawson 13 May '22

13 May '22

During the past week qt5 was updated on CentOS Stream 8 and 9 to version 5.15.3. This caused updates to break for KDE users running CentOS Stream 8 and 9. The epel 8 and 9 packages affected are being rebuilt at this time. We expect everything rebuilt and through testing next week. Question: Does this affect my RHEL/Alma/Rocky 8/9 install? Answer: Not at this time. This qt5 update isn't going to be released until RHEL 8.7 and 9.1. Question: What is being rebuilt? Answer: epel8 - We believe about 30 packages. That includes all of the qt5 packages in epel8, as well as several plasma and kf5 packages that have tight version dependencies on qt5. epel9 - The entire KDE Plasma Desktop stack. (about 380 packages). There recently has been an update to wayland-protocols in Stream 9. It didn't break anything, but it had been an update that was needed to update to the latest kf5 and plasma releases. Since we knew that the qt5 update was coming, we held off rebuilding everything until qt5 came out. Now that it is out, we are updating everything. Troy Dawson

2 4

Decommissioning of CentOS Stream 8 source-git branches
by Tomas Tomecek 13 May '22

13 May '22

Hello, we would like to announce our plan to decommission and remove the c8s branches of the CentOS Stream source-git repositories. This also means the removal of any repository from the gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src namespace which is left without a branch. Stream 9 content will not be affected. As you might remember, these are the source-git repositories produced by unpacking the c8s branches from CentOS Stream 8 dist-git, and making the resulting content available at gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src. We took a look at the utilization of this content during 2021, based on the GitLab data and found out that no one from the community has used these repositories to contribute to CentOS Stream 8. The only exception is the kernel repository [1], we will keep that one up. Please let us know if you find these repositories useful or are part of your routine. Our focus for the future is to deliver a consistent source-git workflow for Fedora and CentOS Stream under the umbrella of Fedora source-git SIG [2]. [1] https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-stream-8 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git Tomas

1 2

[Cloud SIG] Cloud SIG chairs elections
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 09 May '22

09 May '22

Hi, The Cloud SiG has been active for the past year and it's time to hold elections for chair and co-chair again. Please reply to this email with your self-nominations and nominations for other members of the SiG. If you are nominated by another member of the SiG please re[;y to this mail as well with your acceptance (make sure amy(a)redhat.com is cc'ed). Nominations will conclude at the start of the May Meeting[0]. If we have a quorum, we will hold elections during this week's meeting. If a quorum is not met, we will ask for 1-2 volunteers and hold an election outside our regular meetings in the next week. Any questions please reach out to Amy Marrich (amy(a)redhat.com) 0 - https://www.centos.org/community/calendar/#cloud-sig

3 3

packaging DPDK 21.11 in RPM in CentOS 7 (elftools not found)
by Stefan Puiu 06 May '22

06 May '22

Hi, I've already asked this on the dpdk-users list (https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2022-April/006395.html) without getting any answer, so I thought maybe I'd also try centos-devel, since this is a CentOS and dpdk question. We're using a CentOS 7 based distro that is obviously RPM-based, and we package the DPDK with it, in order to run on some of our x86-64 hardware boards. Now, we currently have DPDK 20.11 in our image and are looking to upgrade to 21.11, and I'm hitting a build error about elftools not being found: Program python3 found: YES (/usr/bin/python3) ../buildtools/meson.build:49:8: ERROR: Problem encountered: missing python module: elftools The fix seems to be to install pyelftools from pip: pip3 install pyelftools But that only works for building directly with meson / ninja. That doesn't work when building through rpmbuild. I've struggled to understand this, until I found this RedHat bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937494. It seems Fedora changed the python3 search path so that /usr/local/lib/python is not taken into account if RPM_BUILD_ROOT is defined (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Making_sudo_pip_safe) so basically, when building with rpmbuild, pip-installed packages are ignored. I think I can understand the rationale of the Fedora change when you want to ensure that dependencies are properly set: packages installed using pip are not recorded as RPM dependencies, and the package might break at runtime. However, as far as I can tell, pyelftools seems to be a *build-time dependency*; removing the elftools check in the meson script leads to a build failure. There's no pyelftools RPM for CentOS 7 that I could find, so I don't see another option than installing the package from pip. Also, the python change in Fedora doesn't seem to allow for any workaround. The only thing that I can think of is ugly as hell: symlink everything under /usr/local/python in /usr/lib/python for the DPDK build. I'm not even sure we need pyelftools at runtime; in our build of DPDK-20.11, dpdk-pmdinfo.py doesn't even run (because of missing pyelftools :) ). Are there any other people struggling with this? Is there any more elegant approach that I haven't thought of? Thanks, Stefan.

2 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel April 2022