devel

devel@lists.centos.org

1 participants
4605 discussions

Dependency problems in C5 Extras with gmime, drbd, xfprint, EPEL
by Anssi Johansson 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

I found these dependency problems when running repoclosure with the -n option, which makes repoclosure consider only the newest versions of each package. #1 and #3 are only a problem if EPEL is enabled. I'm not sure if these require any action, but I wanted to get these off my chest anyway. Issue #1, gmime: The following packages are in CentOS 5 Extras: - gmime-2.2.10-5.el5.centos - gmime-devel-2.2.10-5.el5.centos - gmime-sharp-2.2.10-5.el5.centos EPEL has: - gmime-2.2.26-1.el5 - gmime-devel-2.2.26-1.el5 Now if someone has gmime-sharp-2.2.10-5.el5.centos and its dependency gmime-2.2.10-5.el5.centos installed and runs "yum update" with EPEL enabled, there will be a dependency problem. yum would like to update gmime to 2.2.26, but it can't, because the old version is required for gmime-sharp. Issue #2, drbd: The following packages are in CentOS 5 Extras: - drbd-8.0.16-5.el5.centos - drbd82-8.2.6-1.el5.centos - drbd83-8.3.15-2.el5.centos - kmod-drbd-8.0.16-5.el5_3 - kmod-drbd-xen-8.0.16-5.el5_3 - kmod-drbd82-8.2.6-2 - kmod-drbd82-xen-8.2.6-2 - kmod-drbd83-8.3.15-3.el5.centos - kmod-drbd83-xen-8.3.15-3.el5.centos If I install kmod-drbd and its dependency drbd with "yum install kmod-drbd" and then run "yum update drbd", yum will attempt to replace drbd with drbd82, because drbd82 obsoletes drbd. This will fail, because drbd is required by kmod-drbd. Issue #3, xfprint: xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos is in CentOS 5 Extras. If I have installed that with "yum install xfprint --disablerepo=epel" and then run "yum update" with EPEL enabled, I get this: --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-client.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-manager.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint ---> Package libxfce4util.x86_64 0:4.6.2-1.el5 set to be updated ---> Package libxfcegui4.x86_64 0:4.6.4-1.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: xfce-mcs-manager >= 4.4.2 for package: xfprint ---> Package xfce4-settings.x86_64 0:4.6.5-3.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: libexo-0.3.so.0()(64bit) for package: xfce4-settings ---> Package xfconf.x86_64 0:4.6.2-3.el5 set to be updated --> Running transaction check ---> Package exo.x86_64 0:0.3.107-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: xfce4-doc for package: exo --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-client.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-manager.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint --> Processing Dependency: xfce-mcs-manager >= 4.4.2 for package: xfprint --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-client.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint --> Processing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-manager.so.3()(64bit) for package: xfprint --> Processing Dependency: xfce-mcs-manager >= 4.4.2 for package: xfprint ---> Package xfce4-doc.x86_64 0:4.6.2-3.el5 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-client.so.3()(64bit) is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: xfce-mcs-manager >= 4.4.2 is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-manager.so.3()(64bit) is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-client.so.3()(64bit) is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: xfce-mcs-manager >= 4.4.2 is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: libxfce4mcs-manager.so.3()(64bit) is needed by package xfprint-4.4.2-1.el5.centos.x86_64 (installed) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest If I now remove xfprint and run "yum update" again with EPEL enabled, I get: ---> Package libxfce4util.x86_64 0:4.6.2-1.el5 set to be updated ---> Package libxfcegui4.x86_64 0:4.6.4-1.el5 set to be updated ---> Package xfce4-settings.x86_64 0:4.6.5-3.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: libexo-0.3.so.0()(64bit) for package: xfce4-settings ---> Package xfconf.x86_64 0:4.6.2-3.el5 set to be updated --> Running transaction check ---> Package exo.x86_64 0:0.3.107-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: xfce4-doc for package: exo --> Running transaction check ---> Package xfce4-doc.x86_64 0:4.6.2-3.el5 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: xfce4-settings x86_64 4.6.5-3.el5 epel 324 k replacing xfce-mcs-manager.x86_64 4.4.2-1.el5.centos xfconf x86_64 4.6.2-3.el5 epel 152 k replacing libxfce4mcs.x86_64 4.4.2-1.el5.centos Updating: libxfce4util x86_64 4.6.2-1.el5 epel 122 k libxfcegui4 x86_64 4.6.4-1.el5 epel 351 k Installing for dependencies: exo x86_64 0.3.107-2.el5 epel 1.8 M xfce4-doc x86_64 4.6.2-3.el5 epel 219 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 4 Package(s) Upgrade 2 Package(s) This will update the packages as described. I provided this listing to hopefully provide a better picture of which packages are obsoleted by other packages.

2 1

Minutes from CentOS SIG sync-up meeting on #centos-devel (2014-12-03)
by Honza Horak 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Initial content: * there were concerns what will happen with downstream collections already in git.c.o -- we'll let the existing SCLs as they are now, at least for beginning * the sig can/could/should provide them as a build (not priority for beginning) * we should see what the biggest consumers need -- openshift origins or foreman * since there is quite big demand for php and mariadb, we will begin with those two collections New scl-utils: * next version of scl-utils will offer environment modules, but it is not ready so far Access to git/koji: * since nobody objected against proposed git structure, we'll start with what is proposed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal * in order to start we need to submit a bug with login, gpg public key, email and request git/koji access for both services in parallel * in koji, alphacc is executioner on the koji setup, but mikem, imcleod_ and MerlinTHP might be able to help as well Bug reporting: * we do not know how to track bugs so far Full meeting log attached. Conversation will continue at https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg. Honza

1 0

Switching to centralized authentication for centos.org infra (aka FAS vs IPA)
by Xavier Lamien 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

Greetings folks, As the principal FAS upstream, I would like to help you guys out making - as much as possible - (the right?) move by having the right information. First of all, let's start by a short FAS introduction. FAS has been designed to be community oriented by providing to the community a way to operate by itself through teams management (i.e group membership/management). As a result, our web interface has to be more than just an administrative interface to manage users & groups like other does. I recommend to go read more about it at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/about before go further. While keeping the openness, we also added: 1. A plugin Interface which let you add any new feature Plugin we had developed: * asterisk (no longer in prod however the plugin still is maintain) * yubikey (some of our group requires their members to have a key to access bound hosts) * OTP 2 factor auth (in a branch) 2. A non-standard API (current master) which let registered people and/or 3rd parties (from login mechanism) to read-only from FAS. Next is, my feedback after reviewed the wiki page and previous msg: >> project URL The project is mainly active on github (fedorahosted.org has been set as backup) v2: https://github.com/fedora-infra/fas v3.0: https://github.com/fedora-infra/fas/tree/FAS_3.0 >> packages available natively in the distro We do provide rpm's for rhel (e.g. http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/6Server/x86_64/fas-0.10.0-5.el6.noa… ) FAS v3 package will be in distro as it will be no Fedora project specific. >> multi-master replication Is this our we can replicate FAS from a master image? I really didn't get that one. If someone could explain it to me, that would be great. >> kerberos support: Not supported at this time. We do think of it for a v3.xx though. But it's not in my priority list unless someone is interesting to work on it. >> LDAP support: FAS v2: no. FAS v3.2: yes however, the LDAP support will be for group and people management. We will keep the DB as FAS is not about user and group management only. >> It's more or less a "Users CMDB" and cron jobs/scripts are creating/removing/modifying users/groups locally on each managed system. Naa, we have a fas-client which actually does the job to synchronize accounts on hosts. fas-client has been cron'd as the v2 is a non-daemon tools. We do have a daemon option though that listen to fedmsg and update hosts on demand. However, we set up a push-mode into Fedora infra. >> Mainly written to discuss with the fedmsg bus, and so targetting all Fedora Applications FAS has not been written to talk to 3rd parties (as stated in introduction). fedmsg cames few years after FASv2 launch. fedmsg is for FAS just another notification mechanism. >> Written for one project It has been the case for quite a while before I started work on FAS. For the record, I maintain the RPM Fusion infra and are using FAS there as well. even though this is related to fedora project, RPM Fusion are not providing the same level of services and doesn't have the same team structure (we don't use license agreement feature, nor asterisk's one, nor bugzilla feature atm). >> but we are working on a new fas 3 version that will use flask. Naa.. FAS 3 is a pyramid app. >> I guess it would be easier for everybody too, as just for today I've read that FAS3 would be in fact based on IPA so not on the actual FAS setup Nope, it will not rely on FreeIPA as FreeIPA doesn't comply with our need as stated in introduction. However, we may look at their kerberos and directory server implementation as a plugin for FAS. If you have any question which are not answered here, please feel free to ask. Also, as Kevin said, the v3 is being writing and will come up with lot of features so question here are much appreciate ;) - Xavier

3 3

cloud-init in CentOS
by Sam Kottler 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

During the cloud instance SIG meeting today we talked about future plans for cloud-init in CentOS. Right now cloud-init is included as part of EPEL and that's where most CentOS users consume it from. The problem is that cloud-init and related bits are critical for building images to run on a public or private cloud, and we need to build early guest initialization tools into the cloud images we produce. Ideally this does not include adding EPEL or packages from EPEL which have not been rebuilt in our build systems. So, the proposal that there's general consensus upon within the SIG is to maintain cloud-init, its dependencies, and any related packages on git.centos.org and rebuild them ourselves. I'm one of the maintainers in EPEL so I offered to maintain the git repos for CentOS, anyone else who would like to be involved in more than welcome to step up. Thoughts, questions, concerns? -s

7 17

Re: [CentOS-devel] [rh-scl] Proposal for CentOS dist-git design
by Honza Horak 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

On 11/26/2014 07:51 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 25/11/2014 09:05, Honza Horak a écrit : >> Hi guys, > > Hi, > >> this is a draft for CentOS dist-git design I put together from various >> notes/ideas. It still needs to polish, so it will probably be changing >> in but I wanted to share it as soon as possible to gather feedback soon >> and incorporate your ideas. >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal > > First, sorry for stupid questions, but it seems I still haven't > understand the goal, what we want to fix, and how. Remi, thanks for them! For some I had no answer yet, so I added them to the wiki with some just figured out answer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal#FAQ Also CC'ing centos-devel list, since these are all questions we need to answer publicly. So, what we want to fix here.. CentOS is a platform used by huge amount of users, who e.g. develop apps for RHEL. Missing SCLs in CentOS is then problem for those users, because they cannot develop apps using SCLs. I guess there are no doubts SCLs are needed in CentOS. Then, why move *development of the future SCLs* to CentOS and not rebuild RHSCL there downstream? There are RH projects (like OpenShift) that also need to have community version of the product available publicly for all, so they started to use CentOS as their development platform. That means fixes land in git.centos.org first, where everybody can test, and community can see code that will land in RH in the future. So they build community on CentOS. Given there are already projects using CentOS as development platform and given users use CentOS as development platform, we see it as great opportunity to build community around SCLs there as well, which is what SCLs is missing. Also, it makes sense to have a common platform where upstream development of RH layered products takes place and where products may interact. We consider CentOS to be this platform now. > > "... where future upstream development of Software Collections > will take place" > > So, if I understand correctly, if I want to create a "php56" collection, > I should be able to do it in git.centos.org ? Yes. > Where the packages will go (which repository) ? My proposal is to use one repository on CentOS side for all collections. However, this will be a different repository than the one for rebuilt RHSCL collections (if there ever will be such a repository). > How user will see the difference between "stable" packages and > "development" packages ? I'm not sure yet, but there can be two repositories. One repository with stable downstream rebuild of RHSCL, another with SCLs that include fixes above RHSCL and have quality compared to Fedora. > If, at some time, RH provides a "php56" collection, this can be pulled > from this one. But what will happen next to earlier packages ? Nothing, it will stay, new patches will still be landing there before they land in RHSCL. > Will the ACL on the package stay the same ? ACLs were not consulted yet. > About koji setup: > > Which repository/tags will be enabled in each target ? I expect only CentOS and already built SCLs will be available. > Especially, will EPEL be available, or some replacement ? I don't think so, why EPEL? > Will the SCL-SIG be able to add additional packages in existing > collections ? If you mean already released collections, we haven't consulted what will happen with them, just that sources are already available for CentOS and we'll let CentOS community to build them. For new collections, which are subject of this proposal, it will be possible. > Exemple : for now, Fedora is upstream for RHEL, packages are then split > between RHEL and EPEL (short way to describe what happen). > > How can we manage, p.e. php-mcrypt (huge user demand) in this > configuration ? (part of php in Fedora, and php-extras in EPEL). Not sure what are you asking for. php-mcrypt will be part of php56 collection for instance, but I probably did not understand the question. >>From my point of view, there should be a clear definition of "upstream" > > Old: > "Fedora is upstream of RHEL" > New: > git.centos.org is upstream of RHSCL, > in one "experimental" repository > (not yet in RHSCL) Yes. > Old: > "RHEL is upstream of CentOS" > New: > git.centos.org receive clone copy of RH content > in one "production" repository. > (clone of RHSCL) > > git.centos.org produce more content > in one "additional" repository > (like EPEL for RHEL) Yeah, the whole point is that CentOS won't be only downstream for all RH products any longer. It will stay downstream for RHEL, but upstream for some other projects. > I think we probably even need more git or more branches, not a single one) Git will be similar to what we have internally, one repository per component and branch for every "combination of CentOS and collection" where it makes sense. But it is already mentioned in the proposal. > > Regards, > Remi. > > > > P.S. are we trying to kill Fedora ? I hope not :) Just SCLs don't bring so much value for Fedora users, since they already have their packages in latest versions there. That does not mean SCLs are not usable there, I'd love to see SCLs in Fedora still; just we focus more on CentOS now because it will solve more issues for more users currently. Honza

2 2

[PATCH] Some packages seem to want to know where 'topdir' is....
by Pat Riehecky 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

From: Pat Riehecky <riehecky(a)fnal.gov> --- return_disttag.sh | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/return_disttag.sh b/return_disttag.sh index 2c1e522..0048cd6 100755 --- a/return_disttag.sh +++ b/return_disttag.sh @@ -25,12 +25,12 @@ build_with_dist_scl() { SCL=${3:-} if [[ "x${SCL}" == 'x' ]]; then - result=$(rpm --define "dist ${DIST}" -q --specfile "${SPECFILE}" --qf '%{n}-%{v}-%{r}\n' 2>/dev/null | head -n 1) + result=$(rpm --define "%_topdir `pwd`" --define "dist ${DIST}" -q --specfile "${SPECFILE}" --qf '%{n}-%{v}-%{r}\n' 2>/dev/null | head -n 1) else - result=$(rpm --define "dist ${DIST}" --define "scl ${SCL}" -q --specfile "${SPECFILE}" --qf '%{n}-%{v}-%{r}\n' 2>/dev/null | head -n 1) + result=$(rpm --define "%_topdir `pwd`" --define "dist ${DIST}" --define "scl ${SCL}" -q --specfile "${SPECFILE}" --qf '%{n}-%{v}-%{r}\n' 2>/dev/null | head -n 1) fi - echo $result + echo ${result} } ##################################################################### -- 1.7.1

2 1

CBS/Infra Meeting 01-Dec-2014 14:00 UTC
by Brian Stinson 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Greetings All! Every week we get together to talk about the status of the CentOS Community Build System[1]. We will be meeting on 01-Dec-2014 at 14:00 UTC in #centos-devel on freenode. Agenda: #info Topic: Status Updates #info Subtopic: Centralized Authentication #info Subtopic: Koji/Repos #info Subtopic: Centpkg #info Topic: SCL dist-git Proposal #info Topic: Open Floor Cheers! Brian [1] http://cbs.centos.org/

2 1

Proposal for a bi-weekly Storage SIG meeting
by Lalatendu Mohanty 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Hi All, Lets meet at 15:00 UTC, Wednesday or Friday bi-weekly in #centos-devel for Storage SIG [1]. Does this time i.e. 15:00 UTC work for you? yes/no/suggestion? Which day works better for you? Wednesday or Friday? Agenda might be something like this: #info Topic: Status Updates #info Subtopic: GlusterFS #info Subtopic:OpenAFS #info Subtopic: Ceph #info Topic: Open Floor [1] http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage Thanks, Lala #lalatenduM

3 4

Proposal for CentOS dist-git design
by Honza Horak 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Hi guys, this is related to the new SCL SIG [1], which is supposed to bring SCL development into CentOS, which is supposed to become upstream for Software Collections. I've promised I'd look at how dist-git could look like on CentOS side, since we want to start keeping source code for SCLs under CentOS soon. So, [2] is a proposal -- please, take a look at it, so we have something to start with. Let's see if it is feasible. We can also move it to CentOS wiki, which would be more appropriate place for it, but I cannot figure out a where I have permissions to add some new content to. More information about Software Collections concepts is available at [3]. What next? I think we should gather some feedback on this proposal, try to figure out open questions there. Then we will pick up some software collection and create some PoC build from CentOS dist-git. Regards, Honza [1] http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hhorak/Draft/centos-scl-git-proposal [3] https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/docs/guide/

3 4

Fwd: Open Seat on the Fedora Server Working Group
by Karsten Wade 25 Nov '14

25 Nov '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just a heads up for anyone interested in being involved in the upstream that is essentially the future of CentOS Linux core. Much if it is now being described and directed by the Fedora Server Working Group. You can read more about the working group's objectives here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document#Product… For the open seat, you can self-nominate even if you are new to the Fedora Project. However, you might find it just useful to watch and comment on the working group's activities. They run open IRC meetings and discussions. Either way, it's an opportunity to learn about and help shape the future of the Red Hat Linux distro family. - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Open Seat on the Fedora Server Working Group Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:11:19 -0500 From: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> Reply-To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To: Server SIG <server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org This past week, David Strauss chose to step down from his position on the Fedora Server Working Group, citing a lack of alignment with his current work usage. The Fedora Server SIG would like to thank David for his contributions up to this point and wish him well. This means that there is currently a vacancy in the Fedora Server Working Group. The Working Group is the nine-person volunteer body that oversees the development, testing, release, documentation, marketing and evangelism of the Fedora Server. Membership on this Working Group is a moderate commitment requiring a participation of a minimum of two hours a week, one hour of which being the (usually) weekly meeting. Membership on the Fedora Server Working Group does not require you to be a developer, tester or administrator. Anyone who is interested in advancing any of the Fedora Server's goals[2] is eligible to self-nominate. Document-writers, translators, Fedora Ambassadors, end-users and anyone else can become a part of this team. If you feel that you are interested in becoming more involved with the Fedora Server, we encourage you to self-nominate by joining the Fedora Server mailing list[1] and sending a self-introduction and nomination email to that list. We will have open nominations from now until Tuesday, December 9th, where we will vote on the new member at the weekly meeting. If you self-nominate but aren't selected to serve on the Working Group, do not fret! The Server SIG is open to all and the Working Group will always listen to your advice and concerns, so please stick around! While the Working Group is the final authority and voting body when disagreements come up or official decisions (like branding) need to be made, we are not the only people working on the Fedora Server. The Server SIG is small today, but growing. We would very much like to have you join us. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document#Product… - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlR01wQACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHcJQCfWYO1fIzBhYXb6cec7PpeAxxr gKkAnjVn2kh20zqfaHEaup1HA0URzEE4 =fXmU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel