devel

devel@lists.centos.org

18 participants
4604 discussions

missing announcement
by Markus Falb 09 Nov '12

09 Nov '12

Today yum told me there are updates selinux-policy.noarch 3.7.19-155.el6_3.6 updates selinux-policy-targeted.noarch 3.7.19-155.el6_3.6 updates I think it is this https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-1441.html The CentOS announcement is missing. -- Kind Regards, Markus Falb

1 0

about cc-eal4-config-rhel62
by An Yang 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Hi all, Redhat announced that RHEL6 got EAL4+ certification at last week, and Redhat released cc-eal4-config-rhel62-0.33-1.noarch.rpm in RHEL6's repo, I think CentOS6.2 should got the same EAL4+ security level. Is that possible to add this package in CentOS6's repo? Bests, An Yang

5 11

CentOS Theme for Wordpress
by Karanbir Singh 03 Nov '12

03 Nov '12

hi Guys, Would someone be willing to take a stab at getting the CentOS theme going for a wordpress blog ? The present wiki.centos.org theme would be a good place to start. I'd like to get a status / infra update blog going, and wordpress seems to be the easiest way to go about that. Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

2 2

Net Install ISO
by Chandana De Silva 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

Hello All, I need to create a slightly modified Centos 6.3 Net Install ISO. The modification is trivial, (a default kickstart in isolinux.cfg). I have created a new ISO by loopback mounting the original, copying to a new directory, editing and using mkisofs, and it works as expected. This is how I made the new ISO: <code> cd my_install_directory sudo mkisofs -o ~/centos63-ks.iso -b isolinux/isolinux.bin -c isolinux/boot.cat -no-emul-boot -boot-load-size 4 -boot-info-table -R -J -v -T . </code> However, I an unable to copy this new ISO into a USB disk using dd, in the same manner as the original net install iso. I believe this is because the new ISO does not include an MBR. How do I include an MBR in the new ISO, so that it can be transferred to a USB disk via DD, in the same way as the original ? Thanks in advance Chandana

3 4

Shipping an EPEL release
by Karanbir Singh 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

hi guys, One bit of feedback at LinuxCon this year from people was that we should ship epel with a lower barrier to entry. And I have mixed feelings about that. But I wanted to know what everyone else thinks about : 1) Shipping epel-release in CentOS-Extras, so its installable, usable out of the box. 2) Shipping epel-release in the distro itself, with the epel repos's enabled=false. This is the option that most people seem to want, but I am least keen on. 3) do nothing, leave things as they are. Ofcourse, if we do either (1) or (2) we would need to set some sort of a baseline standard that allows other repo's to be included as well ( as + if they meet the baseline standard ) regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

27 67

yum-security and CentOS-5 / 6
by Karanbir Singh 04 Oct '12

04 Oct '12

hi Guys, with a bit of time opening up, I've gone back to looking at the yum-security issue and how we can address it ( i.e: atleast get the basics working ). I plan on doing the work in multiple stages as : step1: get a basic set of metadata online so that people can detect if an update is tag'd security, bugfix or enhancement step2: get some more metadata added in, with bug id's and cve's into that metadata step3: get everything rolled out by default on all centos installs and look at how external projects like spacewalk/pulp etc consume this metadata At the moment, I'm only thinking about things and trying to scope out the work. However, there is one issue that might be a spanner in the works based on how we have mirror.centos.org setup. What we have right now only provides for the <version>.<release> rpmset and updates but only in relation to that specific tree (eg. /6.3/ is what /6/ maps to at the moment ). Yum-security metadata in this repo would then only be relevant to the rpms contained in /6.3/, whatever repo they might be in - however, someone running 6.0 or 6.1. when checking for updates is likely to miss interim updates that were security tag'd at some release level or the other. One way to work around this would be to have yum consider all interim package metadata between installed.rpm and latest-in-repo.rpm ( which would then mean that we would need the yum-security metadata to contain all info for everything ever released ; isnt a problem as such ). Or we setup a repo that has everything ever released. This in turn has some serious caveats. Storage on every mirror being a good problem to start with - however, in limited tests it looks like yum will work with redirect, so while we would need the metadata to contain all packages, the physical packages can still be handed out from vault.centos.org, but that redirect foo needs some level of smartness on the mirror end; trivial to implement when we control the mirror.centos.org network, however a very large part of the mirror services are offloaded to external mirrors - hundreds of them. Its super tricky getting smartness onto each and every one of their machines. Thoughts, concerns, ideas ? There is no 'work' thats been done at this point on the problem, so we can take pretty much any course of action that seems sane. I feel its important that if we are going to provide a mechanism that people will then in turn rely on to get patch requirements for their machines, we need to make sure we have 100% coverage. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

5 10

Test OpenStack Essex builds for CentOS
by Karanbir Singh 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

hi, http://people.centos.org/z00dax/openstack/essex/ repo file: http://people.centos.org/z00dax/openstack/essex/CentOS-OpenStack-Essex-test… These should be considered as testing packages and are based on the upstream Open Stack preview 1 rpms set. These rpms are also signed with the CentOS-6-Testing key and not the regular distro key. The .el6.alt distag indicates they were built on the Alt.BuildSys and not the primary system.[1] https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/Red_Hat_OpenStack_Preview/ is perhaps the best place to go for a quick start process. The only major difference is section 1.1 of the docs, that explain howto get the rhn repo setup should be replaced by just downloading the above mentioned .repo file into /etc/yum.repos.d/ It takes about 15 minutes to walk through and the end result is a functional open stack install. If anyone wants to offer up some basic template images to use, please do so. I have not tested to see how these rpms are going to work with/conflict with the EPEL hosted openstack. Some feedback on that would be appreciated as well. - KB [1]: Lots more details on that over the next few weeks. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

4 9

Centos Test times
by Madhurranjan Mohaan 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

Hi, We were discussing build and test times on the IRC and one suggestion was to get information around tests and how much time its taking . Attached is a script used to run the tests and the final csv in descending order that gives you the tests and the time taken . Most of the time is taken by the installs . I've also included the csv which has errors when I ran these tests. These were run on a Centos 6 VM. This experiment didn't seem to use the nearest mirror. So for the next run, added the local mirror and the results are in the csv - "sorted_test_times_3_descending.csv" Suggestions to make this better would be great as well . thanks, Mamu

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release
by Christoph Galuschka 15 Sep '12

15 Sep '12

> > hi guys, > > One bit of feedback at LinuxCon this year from people was that we should > ship epel with a lower barrier to entry. And I have mixed feelings about > that. But I wanted to know what everyone else thinks about : > > 1) Shipping epel-release in CentOS-Extras, so its installable, usable > out of the box. > > 2) Shipping epel-release in the distro itself, with the epel repos's > enabled=false. This is the option that most people seem to want, but I > am least keen on. > > 3) do nothing, leave things as they are. > > Ofcourse, if we do either (1) or (2) we would need to set some sort of a > baseline standard that allows other repo's to be included as well ( as + > if they meet the baseline standard ) > I add EPEL to all C6 installations because there is a certain set of packages which I need from that repo. But this is done by a script which sord of customizes the C6 installation to my needs. So basically I'm fine doing this by hand. Long story short: options 3 and 1 (in this order) get my vote. To be honest I never thought about other repos being part of CentOS by default. Christoph

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release
by κiζs飛ゞ揚 13 Sep '12

13 Sep '12

You have been unsubscribed from the CentOS-devel mailing list !!! Why should that be? How do I send mail to everyone? ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "David Hrbáč"<david-lists(a)hrbac.cz>; Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 00:20 AM To: "centos-devel"<centos-devel(a)centos.org>; Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release Dne 13.9.2012 17:32, Karanbir Singh napsal(a): > 3) do nothing, leave things as they are. > My vote. DH _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

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