devel January 2023

devel@lists.centos.org

15 participants
24 discussions

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

[REPORT] Quarterly Report - CentOS Automotive SIG
by Jeffrey Osier-Mixon 17 Aug '23

17 Aug '23

January 2023 Quarterly report submitted by: Jefro Osier-Mixon, Red Hat - chair _____________________________________ Membership update This SIG does not have a formal membership process. The mailing list currently has 106 subscribers representing at least 32 organizations, though not all subscribers use corporate emails and some are participating as individuals. _____________________________________ Releases in the most recent quarter (or most recent release, if none in that quarter) The Automotive SIG produces three types of artifacts: - AutoSD, a streaming distribution of CentOS designed for in-vehicle automotive use cases. - An Automotive SIG RPM repository that allows the community to expand the content of AutoSD or experiment with some of its parts. - Sample images, built using OSBuild, which provide examples of how to assemble production images based on AutoSD, customized for some hardware, including container images, based on CoreOS/ostree technologies. AutoSD, or Automotive Stream Distribution, is a streaming distribution for automotive in-vehicle software development based on CentOS Stream. It is transparently the upstream project for Red Hat's eventual in-vehicle OS product. AutoSD has been downloaded and used by many organizations who have commented or asked for help, so we know it is getting some traction though of course we don't have exact metrics on usage. In Q4 2022, we released a version of AutoSD compatible with the emerging SOAFEE specification. SOAFEE (https://soafee.io) is an initiative driven by Arm for the purpose of developing a reference specification for Arm-based software-defined vehicles (SDVs) consisting of an operating system, container orchestration strategy, and application layer. In addition, we introduced a very lightweight container runtime based on podman and systemd that does not include Kubernetes, as the latter represented a significant performance hit on all relevant hardware. We presented at the Arm Developer Summit in November on these topics. In the coming quarter, we plan to tighten up documentation, begin a process for accepting and supporting hardware enablement contributions, and continue to develop AutoSD toward the SOAFEE specification while also contributing to that specification within the SOAFEE community. _____________________________________ Health report and general activity narrative The SIG typically has 1 public meeting per month with 25-40 attendees, with visible participation from 7-10 separate organizations. We have largely given up on a separate office hours meeting due to attendance. This SIG is intended to be a community effort with contributions and shared benefits from all participants. All formal meetings are recorded and posted on this page: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Automotive/Meetings Several Red Hat employees made the initial contributions to the project as well as the infrastructure required to build and test it. We occupy a gitlab repository in the CentOS namespace building software regularly using CI, with build instructions provided on the documentation page at https://sigs.centos.org/automotive/ . Sample images are present and downloadable along with customization and build instructions. _____________________________________ Issues for the board to address, if any None, keep up the excellent work :) Jeffrey "Jefro" Osier-Mixon | jefro(a)redhat.com Red Hat Office of the CTO | Sr. Principal Community Architect, Automotive

1 1

Discussion: Open technical questions concerning SIG content for RHEL releases
by Peter Georg 09 Jun '23

09 Jun '23

Dear all, There has been an inquiry to the CentOS Board to clarify how long SIGs can expect to be able to build against RHEL build targets [1]. This is necessary to allow SIGs themselves to communicate expected lifecycle of their content to users. The outcome of this, in summary, is that SIGs should be able to build against RHEL until it reaches EOL (end of Maintenance Phase) + 30 days (no access to ELS content). This policy follows the one used by EPEL. Note: It is (obviously) still up to every single SIG to decide if and for how long they want to support a particular RHEL (or CentOS Stream) release. This inquiry also included respectively raised some technical questions. These technical questions are not to be decided by the CentOS Board. In [2] it has been recommended to discuss these on centos-devel. So let's do that. I want to start with two open questions which I do know of. In case there are other open question concerning this matter please raise them here. First open question is where to push content produced by SIGs for RHEL8 to. To better understand the issue, let me summarize the current situation, for which we first need to define the used format for tags in CBS: <sig><el>-<project>-<version>-{candidate,testing,release} where <el> can currently be 7,8,8s,9,9s Packages tagged for -testing are pushed to: https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ Packages tagged for -released are push to: If el = 8 or 8s: debuginfo rpm packages: https://debuginfo.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ src.rpm packages: https://vault.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/Source/<project>-<version>/ Everything else: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ If el = 9 or 9s: http://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ For src.rpm <arch> is source. Note: Although it is not relevant for the discussion, in fact on the mirrors the suffix "s" of <el> is replaced by "-stream". This currently is all fine. However it is planned that the infrastructure currently used for packages built for 8 or 8s will disappear once CentOS Stream 8 and CentOS Linux 7 are EOL (June 30th, 2024). So in case any SIG decides to produce content for RHEL 8 after that date packages can not be distributed properly anymore. Only using the -testing tag and thus https://buildlogs.centos.org is not really an option as it would probably produce too much load on these. My proposal: After CentOS Stream 8 went EOL (May 31st, 2024), which is the same date as the end of the Full support phase of RHEL 8, at least the -release tag of all RHEL 8 build targets is locked and SIGs have to opt-in in case they want to build content for RHEL 8 during its Maintenance Support phase (End: May 31st 2029) for a particular build target. For these, tagging for -release will then push content to http://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/8/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/, i.e. the same location as used for 9 and 9s. This gives SIGs one month for all required changes before the currently infrastructure disappears. Of course this means additional work for SIGs and Infra. However at some point the location where to push content to has to be changed before the currently used infrastructure disappears. Choosing an earlier date would result in work for SIGs who do not want to continue providing any packages once RHEL 8 enters Maintenance Support phase anyway. The second open question concerns the centos-release-* packages provided by SIGs to allow users to easily consume SIGs' content. For 8s and 9s the CBS tags extras<el>-extras-common-{candidate,testing,release} are used to build these packages. This repository is added in CentOS Stream 8 and 9. For packages build for RHEL 8 and 9 there is currently no common way to provide any means of easing the process to consume SIGs' content. My proposal to fix this is by adding extras<el>-extras-common-{candidate,testing,release} for <el> = 8 and 9, i.e., using the same system as currently used for 8s and 9s. To further ease the process I propose to introduce a package named centos-release-extras which contains the repository config pointing to the content of the tags extras<el>-extras-common-{testing,release} (only -release enabled by default) and the CentOS-SIG-Extras GPG key. The centos-release-extras packages itself would be built in the extras<el>-extras-common-el<el> build target. Users of RHEL would then only need to install this single package to allow them to easily install any other centos-release-* packages. Obviously someone needs to maintain the centos-release-extras package. I volunteer to maintain this package. [1]: https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issue/82 [2]: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1002

4 11

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

[Action Required] : Decommissioning (on premises) OpenShift CI cluster
by Fabian Arrotin 29 Mar '23

29 Mar '23

Hi all, Camilla announced this in december already (https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ci-users/2022-December/thread.html) and we sent multiple reminders about that. The plan was already knew since it was decided to move the whole CI infra to AWS (announced in June 2022) but the last bit that had to move was the openshift CI cluster (aka *.apps.ocp.ci.centos.org) to AWS (https://console-openshift-console.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/) As the new cluster in AWS is deployed since end of November you still have to migrate your workload from old to new cluster, and that *before* end of March 2023 (see https://sigs.centos.org/guide/ci/#migration-to-new-ci-instance) We'll continue to send such reminders as long as we see tenants who haven't migrated (yet) We prefer announce it multiple times so that nobody will ask "where is my app gone ?" when the whole cluster will be powered down end of March. PS: if you have already migrated, please confirm to us so that we can already delete your project/namespace/storage PV in the previous cluster. Kind Regards, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab

3 6

[infra] : Planned outage : RDU2 network maintenance (please read)
by Fabian Arrotin 31 Jan '23

31 Jan '23

Due to a mandatory network maintenance at the RDU2 (Community Cage) facility/DC, we'll have to power off some CentOS infrastructure components hosted in that DC. Impacted services: - https://cbs.centos.org (impossible to submit any build, nor push to delivery network) - https://bugs.centos.org - ns1.centos.org - https://wiki.centos.org - all centos linux / stream 8 / stream 9 release engineering workflow (stream 9 can be built but not pushed out, while for the rest, all will be down) - https://git.centos.org - CI infra: - while openshift in aws is self-contained, there will be no way to request duffy nodes for tests - tenants still on legacy openshift (hosted in that DC) will see the whole cluster being powered down (because of Persistent Volumes hosted in a NFS server that itself will be unavailable) - various other services Migration is scheduled for """"Tuesday January 31th, 1:00 pm UTC time"""". You can convert to local time with $(date -d '2023-01-31 13:00 UTC') The scheduled maintenance window (communicated to us) is estimated to 4h, but we'll restart infra services as soon as possible, following ourselves the current status internally. Thanks for your understanding and patience. on behalf of the Infra team, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]

1 1

Getting SIG NFV content built for other architectures
by Colin Walters 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

Hi, so we're working on testing some CentOS Stream 9 stuff for OpenShift, and we use openvswitch by default. Today, the repo only seems to build for x86_64. I looked at https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/NFV but I don't see anything there that gives me links to any *source code* where I could change this. I'd guess there's something like a limited set on the koji tag?

3 5

Enable FIDO2 Support in systemd
by Ersei Saggi 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

Hi CentOS team, By the RPM spec files, (https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/systemd/-/blob/c9s/systemd.spe…) FIDO2 support is disabled in systemd. FIDO2 support is very useful for automatic decryption of LUKS partitions with systemd-cryptsetup. This would allow for external security keys (such as a Yubikey) to decrypt drives with no user interaction. Currently, the current systemd configuration supports only TPM and GPG. In older devices that don't support TPM, the only option for no-interaction FDE decryption is to use GPG (which still requires a key access password to be remotely secure). As far as I can tell, there is no barrier to enable FIDO2 support. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Thanks, Ersei

2 1

New EPEL KDE Proposal
by Troy Dawson 20 Jan '23

20 Jan '23

I plan on making two changes to the current EPEL KDE Update Schedule.[1] ** First: EPEL 8 KDE Plasma Desktop is going to stay at the releases that they currently are at. We will backport major security fixes. Bugs and bugfixes will be best effort. But we will not do any across the board updates. This is due to the older libraries in RHEL 8. We've hit the limit that the newer KDE versions can run on the older libraries. EPEL 8 will have these versions (with a few exceptions) plasma - 5.24 kf5 - 5.96 kde apps - 22.04 / 21.12 / 21.08 and some 21.04 qt5 - 5.15 **Second: We will do the across the board updates to the main epel branches [2] every six months instead of once a year. They will coincide with each RHEL minor release, instead of every other RHEL minor release. With the last release, we found that KDE packages like to build on themselves. Meaning that some 22.04 packages needed a previous version of at least 21.08 to build. That was fine on epel-next where we had updated each six months. But when we tried to build on plain epel8 or epel9, things got complicated. Doing a release every six months will allow users to get the newer updates faster. And although it sounds counter-intuitive, it will save the maintainers time. We haven't officially made this change yet. So if anyone sees any issues and/or problems. Please let us know. Thank You Troy Dawson Fedora KDE SIG [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/EPEL#Update_Schedule [2] - Currently epel9, but epel10 when it comes out

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel January 2023