devel

devel@lists.centos.org

3 participants
4682 discussions

Is there a "mock" setup or downloadable list of tweaked packages for testing CentOS 6 builds?
by Nico Kadel-Garcia 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

I may be able to pry time free to test CentOS 6 builds. But I don't want to burn useful worktime with building mock files and manually rebuilding all the SRPM's. I've got access to licensed RHEL 6 to use as a build environment, and to do what gcc does: build a "staging" setup, then do a clean rebuild with that staging, then do a final rebuild to make sure material matches and look for discrepancies. Is this already done somewhere I can get a copy, so that I don't have to burn time re-inventing the wheel? I'd particularly like to make sure that a current "mock" is in the "extras" repository, to speed build times. (The current mock in epel-testing is much faster and more efficient than the older mock releases.)

4 6

Re: [CentOS-devel] are there any chances to see finished CentOS6 in 2011?
by William Boyle 06 Jan '11

06 Jan '11

I would be happy to help/test/whatever also. I have an 8 core Intel workstation currently running CentOS 5.5 (w/ Plus kernel). I also have a spare hot-swap system drive to install and test version 6 on, or I can run it in a virtual machine under 5.5. FWIW, Scientific Linux 6 is currently available in beta form. If I can't get CentOS 6 at least in a beta form pdq, then I may be switching to SL instead. Since my wife is a physicist on the computing division staff at FermiLab, at least I know who to gripe at when problems arise! Of course, that doesn't mean she'll listen/respond to them... :-) Bill Boyle Chairman, Chicago-Rockford IEEE Consultant's Network

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] are there any chances to see finished CentOS6 in 2011?
by Timo Schoeler 06 Jan '11

06 Jan '11

Hi Bill, thanks a lot for your interest. Unfortunately, I'm not in my office at the moment, answering from my cell phone, so please forgive me top posting. I'll come back to you in about 16 hrs, when I'm back in the office. Including you, we're six guys now. Seems very promising! Best regards, Timo -- Urspr. Mitt. -- Betreff: Re: [CentOS-devel] are there any chances to see finished CentOS6 in 2011? Von: William Boyle <woboyle(a)ieee.org> Datum: 06.01.2011 18:50 I would be happy to help/test/whatever also. I have an 8 core Intel workstation currently running CentOS 5.5 (w/ Plus kernel). I also have a spare hot-swap system drive to install and test version 6 on, or I can run it in a virtual machine under 5.5. FWIW, Scientific Linux 6 is currently available in beta form. If I can't get CentOS 6 at least in a beta form pdq, then I may be switching to SL instead. Since my wife is a physicist on the computing division staff at FermiLab, at least I know who to gripe at when problems arise! Of course, that doesn't mean she'll listen/respond to them... :-) Bill Boyle Chairman, Chicago-Rockford IEEE Consultant's Network _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

1 0

tracking packages in a Release, through the life of the release
by Karanbir Singh 06 Jan '11

06 Jan '11

hi, one thing that I'd like to do with 5.6 and 6.0 is to have centos-release carry repo info for the debuginfo and the vault repo's for the same Release. For 6.0 it would be fairly slim to start with but for 5.6 it could look like this : Enabled by default: [base] [updates] Available, but not enabled: [5.5] [5.5-updates] [5.4] [5.4-updates] .. [5.0] [5.0-updates] Allowing people to get specific packages from anywhere in the Release's past. the baseurl for these will point at vault.centos.org/ Similarly would be the debuginfo .repo's. For /5/ we have a single debuginfo repo, for /6/ we can, and i think we should, split these up into repo's that match the release's. so 6.0's debugs end up in debuginfo.c.o/6.0/ and 6.1 goto d.c.o/6.1/ etc. Just as with the older release's .repo files - these would be present but disabled. Also, I'm trying to plumb in debuginfo signing. But it might end up being a different key to the main distro signing key[1], cross signed by the distro key and master keys. lets see how that pans out. thoughts ? - KB

2 2

Closing out CentOS 6 Bugs
by JohnS 06 Jan '11

06 Jan '11

Karanbir, Can you look into closing out the bugs that can be closed etc? Can also [1,2] be looked into to confirm package depends on abrt / report (hidden gotchas). Look at the example spec file at the changes that are required and the level of them that the Application Backend will have to support. Is there someone that can take on the App Server end? Also needed to know if you are symlinking from "redhat-release" to "centos-release" or not. That depends on how other packages need to be patched, ie "lsb_release". John [1] http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4648 [2] http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4647

4 6

CentOS-6 repositories: *-devel, *-debuginfo, contrib-{unstable, testing, stable}
by Brian Schueler 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

Hi, As I have seen there is only a subset of development libraries included on the upstream's el6 DVD. While packaging my additional software with mock I needed to put some distro SRPMs into my local SRPMs directory to get the *-devel pkgs. (But it would make no sense when the distro packages are updated.) Will be there all *-devel packages included in the CentOS-6 [base]/[update] repositories and will be there a *-debuginfo repo, too? What about contributer repositories? My idea is to have 3 stages of user contrib repositories (two of them controlled by the CentOS dev team): [contrib-unstable] where everyone may upload software packages via web (requiring only a simple registration), that are not well tested and not targeted to a production system. [contrib-testing] packages that have been selected by the developer team that needs to be tested. [contib] packages that are fully tested and confirmed to be stable and which does not have any side-effects to the CentOS base installation. All these points would make C6 fantastic for everyone (for engineers, developers, administrators, end-users and even artists). Cheers, Brian.

3 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] Closing out CentOS 6 Bugs
by JohnS 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:50 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote: No problem it was the "CC:" is why. It deleted my dev list copy. Here's again to dev list for KB. If needed I'll do the BR. John > > On 01/05/2011 12:36 PM, JohnS wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 11:42 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> Hi John, > >> > >> On 01/05/2011 11:40 AM, JohnS wrote: > >>> Karanbir, > >>> > >>> Can you look into closing out the bugs that can be closed etc? > >> > >> Yes, I will try and get to that either today or early in the day tomorrow. > > > > Thanks > > > >>> Can also [1,2] be looked into to confirm package depends on abrt / > >>> report (hidden gotchas). Look at the example spec file at the changes > >>> that are required and the level of them that the Application Backend > >>> will have to support. Is there someone that can take on the App Server > >>> end? > >>> > >>> Also needed to know if you are symlinking from "redhat-release" to > >>> "centos-release" or not. That depends on how other packages need to be > >>> patched, ie "lsb_release". > >> > >> I am keen on looking at using a centos-release with a link over from > >> redhat-release, but lets consider / look at the implications and > >> fallouts before deciding on something for sure. There should not be any > >> reason to patch redhat-lsb; > > > > This here in the spec file needs to be done so it does not imply to the > > user that it is RHEL: > > > > redhat-lsb.spec.orig 2010-01-15 01:57:55.000000000 -0500 > > +++ redhat-lsb.spec 2010-12-02 06:15:17.000000000 -0500 > > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ > > %define lsbrelver 4.0 > > %define srcrelease 1 > > > > -Summary: LSB base libraries support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > +Summary: LSB base libraries support for CentOS > > > >> whatever we do should not, ideally, have any > >> impact on code and expectations from other apps ( specially since there > >> might be implications to third party apps that we cant / dont want to > >> have a feedback loop into ) > >> > >> What do you see as needing patched into redhat_lsb, that would fallout > > > > Well doing it by using a sym link in /etc nothing needs changing. > > CHECKFIRST="/etc/redhat-release" as so that will catch the link sym > > link so nothing will be changed in it. > > > > If you do the reverse of the above CHECKFIRST="/etc/centos-release" then > > it needs a fix me up. So I say go with the symlink > > > > John > > > > >

1 0

rhel-6 rebuild summary
by Farkas Levente 04 Jan '11

04 Jan '11

hi, i write this mail after more people ask me in private. and since the centos core devel team not share any info about it's build system, status, there modifications, doesn't have any public revision system and not really accept any help or advice for outside. but i still believe these are useful info for many others so i try to summarize our rhel-6 rebuild experience. first question is the build host and base repo selection. it's advice to choose both the build system and the base repo as close as to rhel-6 as possible. unfortunately even with official rhel-6 isos you can't get the optional packages in binary. so imho the best base system and base repo is a union of rhel-6 rc2 and rhel-6 beta. both are available freely in binary but only the beta include the optional packages in binary from. after you finish you can rebuild packages on itself again. another important note that most update packages (there're a few dozens) have higher buildreq packages then in the base repo, but these buildreqs are not versioned in the specs. so you've to add the updates pacakges to the build system's base packages otherwise you'll get build errors. i recommend mock-1.1.7 for building. unfortunately at rh it's not required to be able to build src.rpm is mock, they use only rpmbuild (!) which of course cause a few dozen of packages won't build:-( imho it'd be useful something like this for rhel too: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS so let we see what's are the problematic packages (fortunately most of the packages build clean). all of these packages bellow has a bugzilla entry and most of them already contains the solutions. so just go and search for it (i'd not like to link all bz entry:-() - virt-top (missing ocaml-camomile-data) - spice-client (missing pixman-devel) these two packages can't be rebuild on rhel-6 since they has such buildreq which is not shipped in rhel-6 (simple rh forget about it:-) so you can either add to the base repo these packages from epel or from a rebuild from fedora or simple drop them. - bash - zsh can't be rebuild in mock-1.x since a mock tty bug. in this case imho the easiest solution: mock <params> --rebuild bash... ctrl-c during build, then mock <params> --shell rpmbuild --rebuild /builddir/build/originals/bash... - nss can't be rebuild in mock since during %check try to connect to the localhost to test ssl, but it's not working in mock. i suggest the above solution plus ctrl-c during the rpmbuild when the build hang at the ssl connection test and after the you'll got a successful build:-) - kernel unfortunately kernel spec is not updated to the new noarch subpackage style. which means you've to build the arch and noarch packages separately (as in rhel-5). but the new spec file even worst then the rhel-5 was so eg: a simple: mock <params> --target "noarch,i686" --rebuild kernel... no longer works, but mock <params> --target "noarch" --rebuild kernel... mock <params> --target "i686" --rebuild kernel... works:-) imho the best would be to update the kernel spec to the new noarch style subpackage, but afais rh so conservative about kernel spec it won't be happened in the rhel-6.x series:-( - opal has a wrong rh patch which cause ekiga not compile, so you've to fix opal first. - java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.21.b17.el6 can't be build, unfortunately bz with fixes for this package are not public, but there's an update which can be build (may be we'd have to leave this package out). and the remaining packages has different problems in the spec file, but all has (mostly a simple) solution in bz, but doesn't have update package: - guile - openmpi - foomatic - hivex - mod_auth_kerb - gnome-doc-utils - pilot-link - linuxdoc-tools - perl-Sys-Virt - perl-Test-MockObject - perl-Test-Memory-Cycle - perl-GSSAPI - perl-Makefile-Parser - perl-CGI-Session - perl-IPC-Run3 - python-lxml - python-sqlalchemy - rome - epydoc - kdepim-runtime i hope it can help for a few poeple. anyway happy xmas! -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

7 14

looking to help out
by Kenneth Armstrong 04 Jan '11

04 Jan '11

Hi, I was wondering if there was a "getting started" guide of sorts on how to help out with the project? I'm a sysadmin by trade, but my developer skills are a bit weak. Is there a way that I could help with anything? I would like to learn how to do packaging and such, and how to search for upstream branding stuff and repackage a file, as that seems like something I could probably start out with. Thanks. -Kenny

3 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] looking to help out
by Kenneth Armstrong 04 Jan '11

04 Jan '11

That would be great of you could pass on your links for packaging. I would be very interested in trying my hand at that. Thanks! On Jan 3, 2011 5:57 PM, "lostson" <lostson(a)lostsonsvault.org> wrote: On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:48 -0500, Kenneth Armstrong wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if there was... Hi Kenny Here is a great starting place http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute Helping in IRC or the forums and participating on the mailing lists is a great start. If you are interested in packaging I have many links for that as well that have been passed on to me by CentOS people that will help you get started with that as well, if you are interested. -- LostSon http://lostsonsvault.org _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel