devel

devel@lists.centos.org

18 participants
4603 discussions

Public QA Testing?
by Mike Doroshenko 11 May '11

11 May '11

The calendar on the QA site says ISOs will be pushed to QA this Saturday. Will these ISOs be made public for testing or do I need to join the QA Team? I have some machines that I can run test installs on.

4 3

WebSite V2 - progress
by Marian Marinov 11 May '11

11 May '11

Hello guys, we have done some progress on the new web site project. We need your comments for the design of the front page. We have 3 proposals or the design of the frontpage. Please look at them, we need your help :) http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/ Best regards, Marian

12 22

Missing updates? gdb, openoffice.org, openldap
by Andreas Rogge 09 May '11

09 May '11

Upstream has released three Errata which have not (yet?) made it into CentOS http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0178.html (openldap Bugfix) http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0182.html (openoffice.org Important) http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0186.html (gdb Bugfix) Are these missed, skipped or maybe in build or qa? Sorry if that was already brought up on the list earlier. Regards, Andreas -- Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

7 13

Missing announcements CESA-2011:0312 / CESA-2011:0374
by Andreas Rogge 09 May '11

09 May '11

CESA-2011:0374 5.6/updates/x86_64: thunderbird-2.0.0.24-15.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 5.6/updates/i386: thunderbird-2.0.0.24-15.el5.centos.i386.rpm The packages belong to CESA-2011:0374 which was never announced. CESA-2011:0312 5.6/updates/x86_64: thunderbird-2.0.0.24-14.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 5.6/updates/i386: thunderbird-2.0.0.24-14.el5.centos.i386.rpm The packages belong to CESA-2011:0312 which was never announced. -- Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

2 1

Missing announcement CESA-2011:0310
by Andreas Rogge 09 May '11

09 May '11

The following packages are in 5.6/updates/x86_64: firefox-3.6.14-4.el5.centos.i386.rpm firefox-3.6.14-4.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5.i386.rpm xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5.x86_64.rpm xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.14-4.el5.x86_64.rpm xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.14-4.el5.i386.rpm The following packages are in 5.6/updates/i386: firefox-3.6.14-4.el5.centos.i386.rpm xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5.i386.rpm xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.14-4.el5.i386.rpm The packages belong to CESA-2011:0310 which was never announced. -- Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

2 1

Missing announcement CEBA-2010:0227
by Andreas Rogge 09 May '11

09 May '11

CentOS 5 x86_64 updates contains: etherboot-pxes-5.4.4-13.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm etherboot-roms-5.4.4-13.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm etherboot-roms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm etherboot-zroms-5.4.4-13.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm etherboot-zroms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm This belongs to CEBA-2010:0227 and is x86_64 only. Neither CEBA-2010:0227 nor any of the above packages been announced. There's also some more weird stuff we're hitting. I will bring it up on the list unless someone tells me to stop. Regards, Andreas -- Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

1 0

Missing Package spice-usb-redirector / CEEA-2010:0460
by Andreas Rogge 09 May '11

09 May '11

I just noticed that the following packages which were announced as CEEA-2010:0460 [1],[2] but never made it onto the mirrors: spice-usb-redirector-4.5-2.el5_5.i386.rpm spice-usb-redirector-4.5-2.el5_5.x86_64.rpm Regards, Andreas [1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2010-June/016719.html [2] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2010-June/016721.html -- Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG Egermannstr. 6-8 53359 Rheinbach Tel: +49 2226 158179-0 Fax: +49 2226 158179-9 http://www.solvention.de mailto:info@solvention.de

4 7

Confusing package versioning
by Ned Slider 06 May '11

06 May '11

Hi Johnny et al., I'd like to raise a query relating to recent package versioning. For example, CentOS recently released the following updates: httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.1.src.rpm selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm relating to the upstream packages: httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.src.rpm selinux-policy-2.4.6-300.el5_6.1.src.rpm which IMHO is confusing. In the case of selinux-policy (and others) CentOS rigorously follows the upstream versioning, yet for httpd the versioning is different. Firstly, IMHO it is difficult to establish that the two (httpd) packages are indeed the same, and secondly, one wonders how CentOS might handle the notional upstream release of httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_7.1.src.rpm, for example. Where it is necessary to append the centos tag, I would assume it would be preferable to do it at the end of the existing release string thus preserving the upstream notation. For example, httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.1.centos.src.rpm I realise it's not easy when upstream do things like this: Release: 45%{?dist}.1 but at the very least it would be nice if you could set %{dist} to el5_6.centos in this case which would be a closer match to upstream As it stands, it looks like the centos.1 was appended by CentOS and the original upstream package was httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.src.rpm which clearly isn't the case. In such cases, would editing the SPEC file release line be the lesser of two evils?

12 60

redhat-logos bug?
by Farkas Levente 05 May '11

05 May '11

hi, in redhat-logos-4.9.99-11.el5.centos.src.rpm there are source Source8: gnome-splash.png Source9: redhat-credits.png but source 9 never used while source 8 used twice: cp -f %{SOURCE8} gnome-splash/ cp -f %{SOURCE8} pixmaps/ is it a bug or feature? -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 5

sata_via and WD drives incompatibility patch
by Dmitry E. Mikhailov 04 May '11

04 May '11

Greetings, I was hit by an infamous hardware incompatibility between VIA VT6420/1 sata card (sata_via) and newer Western Digital drives. The bug has been worked around in mainline kernel at 2.6.32.7, * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15173 * http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/46352 * http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1062139 The sata_via patch from bug#15173 applies cleanly to sata_via module of 2.6.18-238 and now I'm running using a 'fixed' module with no problem. Unfortunately the patched module uses symbols not from kABI whitelist so universal replacement kernel module could not be made, but the patch itself could be integrated to upstream's tree or into the CentOS-Plus kernel. As I'm not a RHEL subscriber, I can only ask for the latter. Any ideas? Best regards, Dmitry Mikhailov

3 2

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