devel

devel@lists.centos.org

4679 discussions

why is the addons repo empty?
by Felix Schwarz 16 Jan '10

16 Jan '10

Hi, today I noticed that yum-priorities is not anymore in the base distribution - a fact that seems to be well documented. However the yum-utils src rpm still builds that package. Therefore I was wondering why yum-priorities is available in extras and not in addons. Basically http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General says: > What are all the CentOS repositories (directories) and what is each one > for? > > addons > Contains packages required in order to build the main Distribution or > packages produced by SRPMS built in the main Distribution, but not included > in the main Red Hat package tree (mysql-server in CentOS-3.x falls into > this category). Packages contained in the addons repository should be > considered essentially a part of the core distribution, but may not be in > the main Red Hat Package tree. However the addons repo is completely empty for CentOS 5.4. Does that mean addons is deprecated? fs

3 4

Re: [CentOS-devel] [CentOS-docs] Article on building i586 CentOS-5 kernel
by Timothy Lee 15 Jan '10

15 Jan '10

I've been held up by my work, but here is the continuation of the conversation regarding i586 CentOS-5: On 01/11/2010 08:18 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> * Can the changes mentioned in that article be incorporated into the >> stock SRPM? (As far as I know, non-i586 builds should not be >> affected) > No, but there is a big open door in the c5plus kernel window. That would > be the best place for this. > > However, expanding a bit ( and this conversation might be better for > -devel rather than -docs ). > > Is the modified kernel the the only bit of change you need for i586 > support ? I'd think a glibc.i586 might be worth doing as well. And there > were a few other packages that were required to be patched on c4 to make > it work for i586. How many of those are needed here as well ? And there > are a lot of patches in the kernel tree that might not impact the i586 > code at all. eg. whats the state of xen in this i586 kernel ? For my purpose, yes. The modified kernel and glibc.i386 and openssl.i386 are all I needed to get the system running from CF card. I'm not using the procps RPM, but using busybox instead. I never tested Xen support on the i586 kernel. The "CentOS5PentiumSupport" wiki doc mentioned that "-ffast-math" generated CMOV instructions in .i386 packages. That sounds more like a gcc bug. So instead of patching all the packages that enable "-ffast-math", patching gcc would be the ultimate solution. > If there is reasonable interest in running a i586 tree, then imho, a SIG > dedicated to this would be the best route to go. It would also make it > possible to have a i586 specific tree that can be maintained in parallel > to the main core distro. I can see that the amount of physical hardware available for testing i586 packages is limited, but I guess when CentOS-4 reaches EOL, some people might opt for a CentOS-5 upgrade path. Anyway, I'm happy to help out with any testing on physical hardware. When I do find the time, I'll try to look into the CMOV and gcc issue, but no promises there. One thing I'm not good at is organizing things, so I won't volunteer to initiate the SIG... Regards, Timothy Lee

2 1

Forum Thread -- Relating to the CentOS 5 Testing Repository
by Alan Bartlett 13 Jan '10

13 Jan '10

There has been a recent forum thread [1] where the OP has asked about the C-5 Testing Repository and the php packages contained therein. When the time permits, would one of the core-devs please post a comment to that thread. Having defocussed my eyes, I mentally see an image of Tru, Johnny, Karanbir, Ralph or Russ checking the quoted URL . . . Regards, Alan. [1] http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24153&forum=42

5 9

Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS-devel Digest, Vol 59, Issue 1
by User User 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

STOP

5 4

reboots ahead
by Karanbir Singh 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

hi guys, just a quick note to say that there will be reboots on all *.dev.centos.org nodes ( including real machines ) but not on dev.centos.org itself. Reboots should happen during the day 7th Jan UTC. Given that this impacts so few people ( and everyone is here on this list ) I'm not sending this to the announce list. Questions, issues - come find us on #centos-devel(a)irc.freenode.net or just here in the mailing list. -- Karanbir Singh London, UK | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

Forum thread -- "anaconda does not support DHCP option 121"
by Alan Bartlett 27 Dec '09

27 Dec '09

There has been a forum thread [1], with the above subject header, recently started by a user "BruceLee". Both Phil Schaffner and I have (independently) attempted to explain that the OP's request would, most probably, not be dealt with by the CentOS project. I write this message to ask, time permitting, if one of the core dev-team (in no particular order: Russ, Karanbir, Tru, Ralph or Johnny) will please post an authoritative sentence (or even paragraph) to that thread? Regards, Alan. [1] http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23539&forum=37#t…

1 1

mirrorlist issue
by Andreas Rogge 18 Dec '09

18 Dec '09

While upgrading our servers to 5.4 I just noticed that the mirrorlist is somewhat "broken" (at least for me). For 4.8 it does work: http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?repo=updates&arch=x86_64&release=4.8 For 5.3 it also works: http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?repo=updates&arch=x86_64&release=5.3 But for 5.4 it doesn't work: http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?repo=updates&arch=x86_64&release=5.4 Is that intended? If so: how do I say "I want 5.4 and all its updats but I don't want to move to 5.5 right now" <background-info> I know that usually one would just ask for "release=5", however - our rpm-patch-and-upgrade-toolchain relies on the ability to pin the system to a specific CentOS release until we're sure our boxes can be moved to the new release. We do that by replacing $releasever in the CentOS-Base.repo with the exact release we want to stay with. </background-info> Regards, Andreas -- Solvention Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

2 2

New package: PowerAdmin
by Léon Keijser 18 Dec '09

18 Dec '09

Hi, I would like to submit a new package for inclusion in the CentOS repositories: Spec URL: http://leon.fedorapeople.org/files/poweradmin/poweradmin.spec SRPM URL: http://leon.fedorapeople.org/files/poweradmin/poweradmin-2.1.3-5.fc12.src.r… Description: Poweradmin is a friendly web-based DNS administration tool for Bert Hubert's PowerDNS server. The interface has full support for most of the features of PowerDNS. It has full support for all zone types ( master, native and slave), for supermasters for automatic provisioning of slave zones, full support for IPv6 and comes with multi-language support. See feature list for all features. rpmlint outputs 2 warnings, both of which i can explain: poweradmin.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /var/www/html/poweradmin/locale/nl_NL/LC_MESSAGES/messages.mo poweradmin.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm The locale file belongs to the poweradmin package and is not meant for system-wide usage. The rm command is to remove the ./install dir when upgrading the package. If it's not removed, PowerAdmin won't function properly anymore. Having never submitted anything for CentOS yet, i welcome all input. Kind regards, -- Léon

3 4

Forum Thread -- "Are we late on 5.4 security updates?"
by Alan Bartlett 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

KB, When you get a spare moment will you please add a comment to the forum thread [1] with the subject heading, above. Regards, Alan. [1] http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=23819&forum=37

1 1

Donating: Out we not be more understanding on the list?
by IT2 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR 09 Dec '09

09 Dec '09

List members, I am not sure if it is just I, but there seem to be a prevalent amount of elitism on this list, and as such I think this is a good time to make note of it in the light of working to accept donations. It will hopefully be instructive to the some several folks (not all of course, but a select segment) of people on this list that are regularly curt, abrupt, condescending, and dismissive of those asking queries of the list to take stock of the fact that their alienating effect is long term and not soon forgotten. Surely, this will impact one's choice to donate. Thus, if the greater CentOS community is going to try to accept donations from those that see extremely righteous value in their work, why spoil that point of view by proving inarguably a contrarian outlook by treating people on this list dismissively? I have no objection to elitism, just noting that sometimes it is better to be a non-elitist with donations, that an elitist with less donations. Just a word to those that think they are wise, but really need to become wise. V/R, Stuart

2 1

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