devel

devel@lists.centos.org

4 participants
4640 discussions

Anaconda install groups vs yumgroups?
by me＠tdiehl.org 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

Hi, In looking at the C6 installer there are several types of installs listed. In the past I could do an install and anaconda would tell me what yumgroups it installed via the anaconda.cfg that was dropped in /root. with c6 anaconda still drops this file but none of the yumgroups are listed. Is there a way to determine what yumgroups a particular install group installs? For instance if I do a server install which groups actually get installed? I am thinking there is something in the anaconda source but so far I am unable to find it and Google is not useful. Is this info listed anywhere? Regards, -- Tom me(a)tdiehl.org Spamtrap address me123(a)tdiehl.org

4 4

CentOS 6.0 mirror repodata not compatible with yum from 5.6
by Greg Swallow 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

I created a bug report - not sure if it is in the right category and thought someone should be made aware of it, so just posting the link to the list here http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4946 Greg

6 13

6.0 /etc/ntp.conf references rhel
by Patrick Bervoets 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

2 1

Updates between minor releases
by Marcus Moeller 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Hi all. In general the release of CentOS 6 has been appreciated a lot in the German-speaking countries. But a lot of ppl complained about how updates are handled in transition phases between minor releases (e.g. 5.5 to 5.6). >From what I can see on the announce list there has be a lack of updates for about two month: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2011-February/thread.html http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2011-March/thread.html where some critical updates where pending. I remember that we once agreed that if a critical update has been released during transition phase, it should be backported. Maybe we have to completely re-think the process. I guess the main aim is to keep minor releases (the ones that are shipped on the media) in sync with upstream. They should not contain newer packages, then upstream to keep compatibility on release date. But on the other hand, already installed systems need to be patched. I am not completely sure how this scenario is handled atm but if not already done this way, i would suggest that the majorversion directory (e.g. 5/) should be fed with these missing updates so that they become nearly next-minor. Similar to what is planned for 6.0 -> 6.1 Besides that the minor release trees (e.g. 5.7/) should only contain packages that are part of the release, no post release updates, on release date. Greets Marcus

2 7

dev86 package found in x86_64 but not in i386
by Teck Choon Giam 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Hi, If I post this in the wrong list, please accept my apology and direct me to the right list so that I won't repeat this mistake again. Thanks in advance. When building my custom xen packages, one of the dependencies is dev86 which found in x86_64 CentOS-6.0 repo (i.e. http://mirror.centos.org/centos-6/6.0/os/x86_64/Packages/) but not in i386 CentOS-6.0 repo (i.e. http://mirror.centos.org/centos-6/6.0/os/i386/Packages/) Is this intended or missed for dev86 not in i386 CentOS-6.0 repo? Thanks. Kindest regards, Giam Teck Choon

1 0

package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64
by Ulrich Leodolter 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

hi, i know c6 it is not released, but centos-release packages was not upgraded when doing upgrade from 5.6 to 6.0 (using upgradeany option). [root@server Packages]# rpm -Uvh centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm warning: centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID c105b9de: NOKEY Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 (which is newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64) is already installed i assume this was not tested because this upgrade method is not supported by upstream vendor. br ul -- Ulrich Leodolter <ulrich.leodolter(a)obvsg.at>

8 12

minimal install & avahi
by Ferry Huberts 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Hi I just did a minimal install and then installed avahi-daemon and avahi-dnsconfd. however, both avahi-* fail to start as services. it seems that they try to use dbus, which is not installed in a minimal install. is there something wrong with avahi dependencies or am i missing something? also, at least one serivce is complaining about nss-mdns, which is not available as a package -- Ferry Huberts

2 1

Xen and timekeeping
by Dmitry E. Mikhailov 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

Hi to everyone, First of all, I'm not sure I'm posting to a correct list, but please let me borrow a minute of your precious time before directing me to the correct place. I have the problem with Xen domU's and timekeeping in dom0. Time in dom0 was incorrect by 5 hours due to wrong timezone assumed. Fixed it by ntpdate ntp.nist.gov. The time on a dom0 was changed. I didn't append xen.independent_wallclock=1 to sysctl.conf thus the time in all domU's was also changed. But THEY DIDN'T "KNOW" THAT! The 'date' output in domU shows time unchanged, as before, incorrect by 5 hours. But any current_time-dependent operations don't behave correctly. Quagga's OSPFd daemon doesn't add routes. 'service dhcpd stop' hangs forever while correctly stopping the daemon. AFAIK, it hangs on 'killproc' [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# grep killproc dhcpd -A 2 -B 2 echo -n $"Shutting down $prog: " killproc $prog RETVAL=$? [ $RETVAL = 0 ] && rm -f $lockfile From http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/15380.html killproc: killproc kills a process which is given by a full path to the executable. ...cut... (by default a SIGTERM is sent, then a SIGKILL if the process does not die within 5 seconds). So a 5 seconds interval becomes 5 hours and 5 seconds - something I'm not willing to wait for. The problem was worked around when I did a 'date 07111158' on a dom0 and all domU's semi-simultaneously. Is this behaviour normal or should I file a bug? Best regards, Dmitry Mikhailov dom0: Hardware: Intel 5000P chipset, 2 CPUs, total 8 cores [root@xensrv ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.6 (Final) [root@xensrv ~]# uname -a Linux xensrv 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 16:41:45 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@xensrv ~]# rpm -q ntp ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.1 [root@xensrv ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo - 8 times the following processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 1998.000 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 1 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni vmx est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 lahf_lm bogomips : 6237.52 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: domU#0 [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.5 (Final) [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# uname -a Linux gbuh-ufa 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 17:49:40 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux domU#1 [root@buhserv ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.6 (Final) [root@buhserv ~]# uname -a Linux buhserv 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 16:41:45 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

2 1

[Fwd: Delivery Status Notification(Failure)]
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

I received about 20 "Delivery Status Notification(Failure)" from address: juan.cardoza at - telcel-blackberry-net stating he has not received mails I posted to this mailing list. Can someone remove or disable him from this list since he's obviously not receiving any mail. Ljubomir -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Delivery Status Notification(Failure) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:00:32 GMT From: postmaster(a)telcel.blackberry.net To: office(a)plnet.rs Your message: To: juan.cardoza(a)telcel.blackberry.net Subject: Re: [CentOS] inconsistent DNS results - ping vs dig vs nslookup Sent Date: Wed Jun 22 17:44:09 2011 +0000 has not been delivered to the recipient's BlackBerry Handheld.

2 2

Public mirrors leaking ISO files
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

One of the members on CentOS Facebook page says that he was able to download ISO file from a public official mirror. Maybe someone could check this claim and plug the leak? Ljubomir

5 7

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel