devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4695 discussions

grisbi for centos 5?
by Heiko Adams 18 Nov '07

18 Nov '07

Hi, as far as I remember grisbi was already part of centos 4 extras - so I would like to see it in centos 5 extras too. -- Heiko Adams <heiko.adams(a)gmail.com>

1 0

Spec for Func
by Stephen Nelson-Smith 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Attached is my spec for func 0.0.13 for CentOS 4 and 5. I've built both of these today and have them in production. The spec checks as clean with spectool. The key dependency is python-setuptools, which I have in my engineering repository, but is in kb's extras for C4 and in EPEL5 (and probably a candidate to be moved into Centos Extras too). Regards, S.

1 0

Customizing CentOS 5
by Hao Xu 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

Hi! I need to make a customized two cd version CentOS 5, removing rpms not needed and adding some extra packages. I'm familiar with CentOS 4 customizing, but I found that in 5 the directory architecture of the installation tree is a little bit different, e.g. there is no 'base' and 'RPMS' directories in os/arch/CentOS anymore. Is there a howto for customizing CentOS 5? Thanks! hao

3 2

preliminarytimeframe to CentOS 5.1?
by Heiko Adams 11 Nov '07

11 Nov '07

Hello, is it possible to give a preliminary timeframe when users could expect the CentOS 5.1 update? -- Heiko Adams <heiko.adams(a)gmail.com>

3 6

About compile option for i386 of cachefilesd
by DAICON 09 Nov '07

09 Nov '07

CC:centos-devel@centos.org Hi. Mr. David Howells. About compile option for i386 of cachefilesd. Confirmed environment: 1, On i386 platform OS : CentOS 5 i386 CPU : Pentium M Mem : 2G Kernel : 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 22 08:32:04 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux (Installed by RPM) cachefilesd : cachefilesd-0.7-6 (Installed by RPM) I test cachefilesd (RPM package) on i386 machine, and I found issue. cachefilesd stopped when the file that exceeded 2Gbytes was loaded from NFS Server. This is because compile option "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" is not set when compiling. When this option is set, it seems to operate normally. You should set this option by default when thinking about the function of cachefilesd. I think. Is there problem in this compile option setting? -- DAICON <daicon(a)daicoon.org>

6 8

kernel panic with cachefilesd and sendmail
by DAICON 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Hi. Kernel panic occurs because of the combination of cachefilesd and sendmail. # # This issue was reported to Linux filesystem caching discussion list <linux-cachefs(a)redhat.com> # Confirmed environment: 1, On i386 platform OS : CentOS 5 i386 CPU : Pentium M Mem : 2G Kernel : 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 22 08:32:04 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux (Installed by RPM) 2, On X86-64 platform OS : CentOS 5 X86-64 CPU : Opteron (Dual Core) Mem : 16G Kernel : 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 22 08:32:28 EDT 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux (Installed by RPM) How To reproduce: 1, Stor OS image to NFS Server. I used CentOS 5. # mkdir /mnt/nfs # mount -t nfs -o fsc 192.168.1.1:/your/export/dir /mnt/nfs # mkdir /mnt/nfs/centos5 # rsync -axv / /mnt/nfs/centos5 2, Launch sendmail. # /etc/init.d/sendmail stop <- if running # /etc/init.d/cachefilesd start <- if not running # cd /mnt/nfs/centos5 # chroot . # /etc/init.d/sendmail start # exit <- exit from chroot 3, Connect to sendmail, and occur kernel panic. # telnet localhost smtp Kernel dumps thi message, and perfectly freeze. (This kernel message is x86-64 platform.) ----------- [cut here ] --------- [please bite here ] --------- Kernel BUG at fs/nfs/fscache.h:267 invalid opcode: 0000 [1] SMP last sysfs file: /class/net/sit0/address CPU 0 Modules linked in: ipv6 nfs lockd nfs_acl sunrpc cachefiles fscache dm_mirror dm_mod video sbs i2c_ec i2c_core button battery asus_acpi acpi_memhotplug ac parport_pc lp parport ide_cd shpchp k8_edac tg3 serio_d Pid: 2402, comm: sendmail Not tainted 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff882eabc8>] [<ffffffff882eabc8>] :nfs:nfs_fscache_release_page+0x1e/0x5e RSP: 0018:ffff81023362bc98 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: ffff81023476e308 RBX: ffff810008b4da78 RCX: 0000000000000001 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff81023362bc68 RDI: ffff810008b4da78 RBP: ffff81023476e1f8 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: ffff810233a51298 R11: ffffffff882eac08 R12: ffff81023476e308 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffffffffffffffff FS: 00002aaaada80a80(0000) GS:ffffffff8038a000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b CR2: 000055556fb72d98 CR3: 0000000235244000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 Process sendmail (pid: 2402, threadinfo ffff81023362a000, task ffff81023fbc90c0) Stack: 0000000000000000 ffff810008b4da78 0000000000000000 ffffffff882eac45 0000000000000000 ffff810008b4da78 0000000000000000 ffffffff800bcd28 000000003362bd18 0000000000000000 0000000000000003 0000000000000000 Call Trace: [<ffffffff882eac45>] :nfs:nfs_release_page+0x3d/0x4d [<ffffffff800bcd28>] invalidate_inode_pages2_range+0x122/0x21a [<ffffffff882f435c>] :nfs:nfs_sync_inode_wait+0x116/0x1db [<ffffffff882ed337>] :nfs:nfs_revalidate_mapping+0xac/0x1b4 [<ffffffff882eb2ee>] :nfs:nfs_file_read+0x45/0x97 [<ffffffff8000c8f8>] do_sync_read+0xc7/0x104 [<ffffffff800645d8>] do_page_fault+0x4eb/0x81d [<ffffffff8009b666>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e [<ffffffff8000b212>] vfs_read+0xcb/0x171 [<ffffffff80012dbe>] sys_pread64+0x50/0x70 [<ffffffff8005be1d>] error_exit+0x0/0x84 [<ffffffff8005b14e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 Code: 0f 0b 68 4a c2 30 88 c2 0b 01 8b 03 f6 c4 01 74 0d be 08 00 RIP [<ffffffff882eabc8>] :nfs:nfs_fscache_release_page+0x1e/0x5e RSP <ffff81023362bc98> <0>Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception Nov 1 12:07:17 -- DAICON <daicon(a)daicoon.org>

1 0

CentOS5 PPC
by Baird, Josh 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Is there an update on the CentOS 5 PPC tree? I know that one is being actively worked on, but I haven't heard about the progress in quite some time. Thanks!

2 1

RHSA-2007:1020
by Karanbir Singh 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

humm.. <issue> https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-1020.html release tags indicate it was built against 5.1, something we have not seen as yet.... </issue> Options: 1) We build it with what we have at the moment, 5.0 + Updates 2) We wait for 5.1 before building it ( Note: it _is_ a security issue... so keep this in mind ) 3) We build it now against 5.0 and Tag it accordingly, and then rebuild it when 5.1 is out and then change Tag to 5_1. It will be a different RPM and would involve most uses doing two updates. Opinions ? -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq

9 15

Inclusion of a driver into the distribution.
by Jason Gross 29 Oct '07

29 Oct '07

Hi, We have a driver that we would like to get included into the CentOS distribution (and others). How would we go about getting it in? We're currently planning to license it under GPL. Thanks, Jason

5 5

Patched version of iptables for centosplus
by Tim Verhoeven 23 Oct '07

23 Oct '07

Hi, I would like to contribute a patched version of iptables to the centosplus repository. The patch enabled some extra extensions. For these extensions the kernel modules exist but not the iptables extensions to be able to use them. The patched version of iptables fixes this. What is the procedure to follow here? Regards, Tim -- Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be(a)gmail.com - 0479 / 88 11 83 Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the "microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed. (Linus Torvalds)

3 5

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