There are test images available for what will be the next CentOS
Atomic Host release:
https://ci.centos.org/artifacts/sig-atomic/downstream/images/
After we've done some testing, we'll update the official CentOS Atomic
Host ostree repo, probably early next week, and announce the release.
We're going to hold off on producing new release images for a week or
so, in order to sync up with the regular monthly centos media refresh
cycle.
These test images include two versions of docker: docker-1.9.1-40 and
docker-latest-1.10.3-22.1. To read more about docker vs.
docker-latest, see:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2016-May/014731.html.
For your non-atomic needs, these docker pkgs, along with the other
content included in these images, are now available in the standard
centos repositories -- docker, kubernetes and most of the other
"atomic" pkgs live in the extras repo.
Happy testing,
Jason
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 01:12 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to re-iterate my interest in having a SIG in CentOS
>> to provide all kinds of tools for operators providing
>> infrastructure by using CentOS.
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>> The scope should be more than just simply packaging applications.
>> Another part should be to provide puppet manifests or ansible playbooks
>> to get things quicker up and running.
>>
>
> +1 - should ideally provide a standalone installer, and puppet
> manifests/ansible playbooks that can be included in other projects (puppet
> manifests for RDO TripleO, ansible playbooks for openshift-ansible, etc.)
>
>
>> Ideally, I would start with providing something like
>> * elsasticsearch/fluentd/kibana for centralised logging
>>
>
> +1
>
> * collectd/graphite/grafana for performance monitoring
>> * sensu/uchiwa for availability monitoring
>>
>
+1
>
>> We have already seen around 10 persons interested in helping, testing,
>> trying out and providing feedback.
>>
>> For communcations etc. I would propose to start small, and to share
>> already existent CentOS channels (email-lists, irc-channel).
>>
>
> Emails should use the [opstools] prefix?
>
> This
>> decision should be revisited, once amount of SIG related communication
>> becomes annoying in general channels.
>>
>> Questions? Thoughts? Additions?
>>
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel(a)centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
I'm in!
Regards,
Martin
--
Martin Mágr
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech
Hi,
Gluster 3.8 is planned to be released in a few weeks, and we're
preparing for provinding the packages through the Storage SIG. For
Gluster 3.6 amd 3.7 we already have centos-release-gluster36 and
*-gluster37 packages in CentOS Extras. These packages only provide the
.repo files so that users can easily install the packages from the SIG.
The SIGGuide in the wiki [1] mentions the steps to do when adding a new
package to the tags/buildroot of the SIG managed build environment.
Could you add the process to request centos-release-* packages to get
included in CentOS Extras?
Thanks,
Niels
1. https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide/Content/Build#Newpkgs
Hello all,
I'm seeing this behaviour since I did `yum update` today on one of my
CentOS 7 boxes in that, `vagrant up` for libvirt provider throws the error:
"The provider 'libvirt' could not be found, but was requested to
back the machine 'default'. Please use a provider that exists."
Details of the issue can be found on [1]. I observed the issue when I
was doing testing for Atomic Developer Bundle (ADB) [2].
Besides that, earlier, one needed to install only two packages -
centos-release-scl and sclo-vagrant1 - to use Vagrant. But now it seems
to have changed and we need to install sclo-vagrant1-vagrant-libvirt as
well as few other packages/dependencies to make it work. I modified my
Ansible playbook [3] which reflects the set of packages I had to add.
What I'm here to understand is that, am I doing something obviously
wrong here to make things work or, did I miss some notification on this
list that had details about the changes? Or is this some kind of
unexpected behaviour?
Thanks!
[1]
https://github.com/projectatomic/adb-atomic-developer-bundle/issues/383#iss…
[2] https://github.com/projectatomic/adb-atomic-developer-bundle
[3]
https://github.com/dharmit/adb-ci-ansible/commit/1da0cbc6961c8161981a15b9d2…
Regards,
Dharmit.
Hi,
there is an integration in place with Gluster, NFS-Ganesha and
Pacemaker. This combination makes it possible to have an active-active
high-available NFS-server backed by Gluster volumes.
We'd like to add automated testing for functional fail-over in the CI.
This requires the use of virtual-IPs that get assigned to the different
NFS-Ganesha servers, which will migrate to other servers upon failure.
On https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/PubHardware is a mentioning of
"reserved IP addresses" where the Gluster project in the CI would like
to get listed too. What is the process to request a few IPs, and what
are the restrictions we need to be aware of (and how to put them in the
Jenkins job)?
Thanks,
Niels
The meeting will be at 13:00 UTC (9:00 EST, 15:00 Brno) in #centos-devel
on Freenode.
Agenda:
* setting up Jenkins for Github PRs
* anything else?
Honza
I'm trying to get ticket #0010838 fixed[1] which would allow
centos-release-scl (and -rh) to be used unaltered on RHEL to access the
SCLo SIG's repositories. Not all RHELs have the upstream RHSCL repos,
and there are additional collections published by the SIG that are useful.
In the Foreman project I'd like to mirror this RPM to provide
centos-release-scl for all EL users during installation to get access to
SCLo builds and rebuilds. I'm aware of the RHEL centos-release-sclo
builds in Copr[2], but they remove centos-release-rh and I'm trying to
ensure the same RPMs can be used on all EL builds.
The baseurl in the package is
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/sclo/$basearch/sclo/, which
on RHEL Server expands to .../centos/7Server/sclo/. Only the "7"
directory exists on the mirror.
Either the mirror could contain symlinks for 7Server -> 7, or the
release repo file[3] could be built with the URL hardcoded without using
$releasever, which was suggested in today's CBS IRC meeting.
Does anybody have any strong preference? If not, I'd like to suggest we
change the release repo file.
[1]https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=10838
[2]https://github.com/sclorg/centos-release-scl#readme
[3]https://github.com/alphacc/centos-release-sclo/blob/master/CentOS-SCLo.re…
--
Dominic Cleal
dominic(a)cleal.org