devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4695 discussions

glibc-2.28-145.el8 with glibc-hwcaps support is coming to CentOS Stream 8
by Florian Weimer 08 Jan '21

08 Jan '21

We have rebased a large part of the glibc dynamic loader and the x86 CPU detection infrastructure to the current upstream version. These changes are going to land in CentOS Stream soon. These glibc changes mean that going forward, run-time selection of optimized shared object implementations is possible for all x86 processors (e.g., generic AVX2-optimized code that gets loaded on EPYC and Xeon Scalable processors). This is primarily being done to allow user application code to leverage this functionality. At this time, we are not adjusting or optimizing CentOS Stream packages themselves. Convenient developer support depends on GCC Toolset 11 and LLVM Toolset 12, which are yet to be released (even in their upstream versions). I’m working on some form of documentation on how to produce builds that are compatible with this feature for earlier toolchain versions. Other changes in the new glibc version include: * Backwards-compatible ld.so cache format changes to support glibc-hwcaps * --argv0 support in ld.so * DT_AUDIT support: The --audit option in binutils ld finally works as expected. * Enhanced --help output in ld.so: “/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help” shows library search path information. * TLS allocation improvements: dlopen is able to load shared objects that use initial-exec TLS in more cases. There is a new glibc.rtld.optional_static_tls tunable to support exceptionally large initial-exec TLS usage after dlopen. * The CPU tunable namespace has been renamed from “glibc.tune” to “glibc.cpu”. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on-list. Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill

3 5

TLS issues koji.mbox.centos.org
by Leon Fauster 07 Jan '21

07 Jan '21

On a C8 station: LANG=C curl -I https://koji.mbox.centos.org curl: (60) SSL certificate problem: unable to get local issuer certificate More details here: https://curl.haxx.se/docs/sslcerts.html this worked a couple of days ago. Any hints? -- Leon

3 5

Hyperscale SIG (Proposed)
by Rich Bowen 06 Jan '21

06 Jan '21

FYI: A Hyperscale SIG has been proposed, and will be considered in next week's board meeting. Details may be found here: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Hyperscale --Rich

1 0

Why gnutls update was built for c8 but not c8s?
by Igor Raits 06 Jan '21

06 Jan '21

Hello, The https://git.centos.org/rpms/gnutls/c/3ec527a2c4ad3bad520b1004a50c075d94cc80… has been imported month ago, but there was just build for c8 from today and none for c8s. Is the process of building automated, or who is responsible for building the updates for c8s? Thanks in advance for your help!

1 0

should we expect to close CentOS Stream bugs as dups of RHEL?
by Ken Dreyer 06 Jan '21

06 Jan '21

Hi folks, This RHBZ tracks a problem in CentOS Stream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901449 Today someone closed it as a duplicate of RHEL 8.4: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901449 When is it appropriate to track a bug against RHEL 8.4 vs CentOS Stream? What do we expect community members (inside and outside RH) to do in these cases? - Ken

11 14

Re: [CentOS-devel] Multiple Geo Rep issues due to SELINUX on CentOS 8.3
by Strahil Nikolov 05 Jan '21

05 Jan '21

Did anyone receive that e-mail ? Any hints ? Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov В 19:05 +0000 на 30.12.2020 (ср), Strahil Nikolov написа: > Hello All, > > I have been testing Geo Replication on Gluster v 8.3 ontop CentOS > 8.3. > It seems that everything works untill SELINUX is added to the > equasion. > > So far I have identified several issues on the Master Volume's nodes: > - /usr/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 has a different SELINUX Context than > the target that it is pointing to. For details check > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911133 > > - SELINUX prevents /usr/bin/ssh from search access to > /var/lib/glusterd/geo-replication/secret.pem > > - SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/ssh from search access to .ssh > > - SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/ssh from search access to > /tmp/gsyncd-aux-ssh-tnwpw5tx/274d5d142b02f84644d658beaf86edae.sock > > Note: Using 'semanage fcontext' doesn't work due to the fact that > files created are inheriting the SELINUX context of the parent dir > and you need to restorecon after every file creation by the geo- > replication process. > > - SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/rsync from search access on > .gfid/00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 > > Obviously, those needs fixing before anyone is able to use Geo- > Replication with SELINUX enabled on the "master" volume nodes. > > Should I open a bugzilla at bugzilla.redhat.com for the selinux > policy? > > Further details: > [root@glustera ~]# cat /etc/centos-release > CentOS Linux release 8.3.2011 > > [root@glustera ~]# rpm -qa | grep selinux | sort > libselinux-2.9-4.el8_3.x86_64 > libselinux-utils-2.9-4.el8_3.x86_64 > python3-libselinux-2.9-4.el8_3.x86_64 > rpm-plugin-selinux-4.14.3-4.el8.x86_64 > selinux-policy-3.14.3-54.el8.noarch > selinux-policy-devel-3.14.3-54.el8.noarch > selinux-policy-doc-3.14.3-54.el8.noarch > selinux-policy-targeted-3.14.3-54.el8.noarch > > [root@glustera ~]# rpm -qa | grep gluster | sort > centos-release-gluster8-1.0-1.el8.noarch > glusterfs-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > glusterfs-cli-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > glusterfs-client-xlators-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > glusterfs-fuse-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > glusterfs-geo-replication-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > glusterfs-server-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > libglusterd0-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > libglusterfs0-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > python3-gluster-8.3-1.el8.x86_64 > > > [root@glustera ~]# gluster volume info primary > > Volume Name: primary > Type: Distributed-Replicate > Volume ID: 89903ca4-9817-4c6f-99de-5fb3e6fd10e7 > Status: Started > Snapshot Count: 0 > Number of Bricks: 5 x 3 = 15 > Transport-type: tcp > Bricks: > Brick1: glustera:/bricks/brick-a1/brick > Brick2: glusterb:/bricks/brick-b1/brick > Brick3: glusterc:/bricks/brick-c1/brick > Brick4: glustera:/bricks/brick-a2/brick > Brick5: glusterb:/bricks/brick-b2/brick > Brick6: glusterc:/bricks/brick-c2/brick > Brick7: glustera:/bricks/brick-a3/brick > Brick8: glusterb:/bricks/brick-b3/brick > Brick9: glusterc:/bricks/brick-c3/brick > Brick10: glustera:/bricks/brick-a4/brick > Brick11: glusterb:/bricks/brick-b4/brick > Brick12: glusterc:/bricks/brick-c4/brick > Brick13: glustera:/bricks/brick-a5/brick > Brick14: glusterb:/bricks/brick-b5/brick > Brick15: glusterc:/bricks/brick-c5/brick > Options Reconfigured: > changelog.changelog: on > geo-replication.ignore-pid-check: on > geo-replication.indexing: on > storage.fips-mode-rchecksum: on > transport.address-family: inet > nfs.disable: on > performance.client-io-threads: off > cluster.enable-shared-storage: enable > > I'm attaching the audit log and sealert analysis from glustera (one > of the 3 nodes consisting of the 'master' volume). > > > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov >

1 0

RFC: CentOS 8 SIG
by redbaronbrowser 05 Jan '21

05 Jan '21

This is an introductory Request For Comment to purpose a community SIG to run CentOS 8 from Jan 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024. The responsiblity of the SIG members will be to maintain a repository of Stream 8 packages which have been accepted for publication into RHEL 8 The benefit to the CentOS community should be two fold: (1) Hopefully smooth the transistion from CentOS 8 to either Stream or Elephant (2) Provide a repository for Stream 8 members to perform a dnf downgrade as needed The purposed SIG is also seeking a CentOS Governing board member as a sponsor.

4 4

SIG representatives for January Board meeting
by Rich Bowen 05 Jan '21

05 Jan '21

In our attempt to increase the openness of the board meeting process, the board has asked for a phased approach, with SIG leaders attending the meetings, before we open them entirely to the project, so that we can assess whether we're still able to complete business in the allotted time with more attendees. We appreciate your patience. To that end, I ask that each SIG let me know who they would like to send as a representative to the January board meeting (Wednesday, January 13th, 21:00 UTC) so that they can be added to the invite list for the meeting. You may send this info to me, or to Thomas Oulevey, board secretary. Thanks.

1 0

what uses the messages on mqtt.git.centos.org?
by Ken Dreyer 05 Jan '21

05 Jan '21

Hi folks, I was reading about the MQTT broker at mqtt.git.centos.org? (https://wiki.centos.org/Sources) Does anything in CentOS infrastructure consume those messages (for example, to automatically build packages in Koji based on Pagure pushes)? I was also wondering about https://github.com/CentOS/ansible-role-kojihub/commits/master/files/plugins… , does any other tool consume those messages? - Ken

4 3

Re: [CentOS-devel] Vote of Confidence
by Mark Mielke 04 Jan '21

04 Jan '21

On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 8:50 AM orkcu via CentOS-devel <centos-devel(a)centos.org> wrote: > I don't think CentOS (or any other clone/rebuild) was ever a Bazaar, it can not be if the goal is to be a good clone/rebuild. > Since the very beginning the control was in a handful of people, very tight, and I remember one crisis when the founder didn't want (was unable/unavailable) to release control of dns domain, sign keys and few other main components that now you complain RedHat don't want to release I think you are right. The original intent, and the announcements and documentation for the project suggested something greater, but the reality turned out to be difficulty in delegation and scale. This is a common problem for volunteer or non-profit organizations. It doesn't matter if you have 3000 people willing to work on your project for free, if you can't effectively assign them work to do. It's worse if you can't even scale beyond a small number like "3", as these 3 eventually move on, and there is no succession plan, resulting in the project failing. For many of us - I think we had a naive trust that this would be figured out, and we would be invited when the time came to invite us. However, it didn't happen, and in 2014, Red Hat offered to take the reins. It's not that Red Hat set out to destroy the community - it is only that Red Hat has a conflict of interest, and it is really difficult for this conflict of interest to not eventually result in favouring certain self-interest outcomes over other non self-interest outcomes, and this is exactly what is happening in 2021. In effect, it was an inevitable conclusion. It was even predicted by several people in 2014. A similar thing is playing out in Rocky right now, however, there is a great deal of accumulated know-how, access to resources, and sober reflection on what went wrong leading up to 2014 and 2020. 3000+ people willing to work for free, but probably only 70 will be able to directly contribute, and initially the number will be a lot fewer as the initial setup takes place. This is why I say that Rocky is what CentOS should have been in 2014. We all know it wasn't. Now there is a chance to fix this. It could be a very good thing. > I don't like CentOS to evolve to Stream, I agree there is a need of a cheap RHEL's quality distribution, and I think all the arguments given so far at the end (in the very bottom) it is about cost (money), from the people complaining about the end because we are losing a very good distro that was free/gratis, from RedHat it is about moving the money to a direction that might provide better benefits for the company. > If RedHat would offer its RHEL with a minimum price (20? 50? 100?) for self support and then charge for a ticket a good amount of money ( like 200? 500?), that might work for a lot of people who are complaining now, I think we all understand that everyone need to have an income to feed its needs, even the small shops that are trying to save in (software) costs as much as possible. If Red Hat had agreed to this in 2016 and 2017 when I was asking for a reasonable solution to our problem, the company I work for would still be a Red Hat only shop. This was an opportunity missed then, and I believe it will be an opportunity missed when the new plans are announced. I don't believe the new subscription plans will be enough to make them an attractive option, and after the stumble with CentOS, even a good subscription plan that might meet some use cases will be frowned upon as a result of this debacle. > Bottom line, I don't think we ever had a community built OS in CentOS, we had people of the community assisting in testing and QA, but not even that was open to the public. I might be wrong but I think even before 2014 we had builders that were not (much) active in mailing list or IRC, and that is OK, each person have different strengths. I don't think you are wrong. Healthy communities need to prioritize delegation and scalability. It means investing specific effort in ensuring that people of different skills and capabilities can successfully contribute to the project. -- Mark Mielke <mark.mielke(a)gmail.com>

7 9

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