devel

devel@lists.centos.org

11 participants
4618 discussions

CentOS-4.9 SRPMS
by Johnny Hughes 07 Mar '11

07 Mar '11

It seems Red Hat is not releasing media for the 4.9 release, so this seems to be just a bunch of updates that is going into the tree. Based on the SRPMS listed here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os/SRPMS/ And the current CentOS 4.8+updates SRPMS here: http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/os/SRPMS/ http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/updates/SRPMS/ This is the list of SRPMS I have started building: autofs-4.1.3-240.src.rpm autofs5-5.0.1-0.rc2.114.src.rpm bash-3.0-27.el4.src.rpm bind-9.2.4-37.el4.src.rpm centos-release-4-9.src.rpm comps-4AS-0.20110202.src.rpm coreutils-5.2.1-37.el4.src.rpm device-mapper-1.02.28-3.el4.src.rpm device-mapper-multipath-0.4.5-42.el4.src.rpm glibc-2.3.4-2.54.src.rpm gnome-volume-manager-1.1.0-9.src.rpm hal-0.4.2-9.el4_8.src.rpm httpd-2.0.52-47.ent.centos4.src.rpm hwdata-0.146.33.EL-19.src.rpm iscsi-initiator-utils-4.0.3.0-10.src.rpm kernel-2.6.9-100.EL.src.rpm kernel-utils-2.4-23.el4.src.rpm lvm2-2.02.42-9.el4.src.rpm net-snmp-5.1.2-20.el4.src.rpm nfs-utils-1.0.6-94.EL4.src.rpm nss_ldap-253-16.el4.src.rpm numactl-0.6.4-1.44.src.rpm procps-3.2.3-8.21.src.rpm python-2.3.4-14.9.el4.src.rpm quota-3.12-9.el4.src.rpm redhat-release-4AS-10.src.rpm rhnlib-2.1.4-17.el4_8.1.src.rpm rhpl-0.148.6-2.src.rpm rpmdb-redhat-4-0.20110202.src.rpm samba-3.0.33-0.29.el4.src.rpm sendmail-8.13.1-6.el4.src.rpm sysklogd-1.4.1-30.el4.src.rpm sysstat-5.0.5-27.el4.src.rpm system-config-lvm-1.1.4-4.el4.src.rpm system-config-network-1.3.22.0.EL.4.6-4.el4.src.rpm systemtap-1.3-5.el4.src.rpm tmpwatch-2.9.1-1.el4.2.src.rpm udev-039-10.30.el4.src.rpm up2date-4.9.1-29.el4.centos.src.rpm util-linux-2.12a-28.el4.src.rpm xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.66.src.rpm If there is more than one SRPM of the same package, I only took the latest SRPM. Can I get a couple of you guys to verify my SRPM list? Note: The Red Hat FTP site is all updates since the release of RHEL 4.0. The CentOS 4.8 SRPMS are the ones on the 4.8 ISOs and the updates are those SRPMS updated since the release of 4.8. We are only interested in the newest SRPMS for each app. Thanks, Johnny Hughes

16 57

Important Conflicts: have incorrect behavior in RPM
by Jeff Johnson 07 Mar '11

07 Mar '11

There's an issue with COnlficts: that affects all versions of rpm back to 3.0.2 that was discovered by Mancoosi SAT solvers ~15 months ago: Conflicts: with missing values aren't compared correctly. The failure symptom(s) in CentOS 5.5 (and in RHEL) are (at least) these: error: Failed dependencies: glibc > 2.5 conflicts with glibc-common-2.5-49.i386 samba-common < 0:3.1 conflicts with tdb-tools-1.1.2-51.el5.i386 Because its glibc and samba, I'm taking the trouble to report the issue here. The issue is being tracked at https://bugs.launchpad.net/rpm/+bug/633208 hth 73 de Jeff

1 0

Updating centos-release / EOL-notice for CentOS 4
by Andreas Rogge 04 Mar '11

04 Mar '11

I noticed that CentOS usually does not copy the EOL-announcement RHSA or provide the updated package associated with it. This would be CESA-2011:0219 with upstream details at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0219.html As everbody seemed to be concerned about the communication done for CentOS 3 End of Life I guess it is probably a good idea to: - duplicate the EOL-Notice RHSA as a CESA - rebuild centos-release to contain an EOL-notice - discuss wether or not to add an EOL-notice to /etc/issue Regards, Andreas -- SNIP (/usr/share/doc/centos-release-4/EOL) -- == End Of Life Notice == According to our support-policy the 7-year lifecycle of CentOS 4 will end on February 29, 2012. After this date no security-updates or bugfixes will be released. If you still run production systems on CentOS 4 you're strongly advised to plan an upgrade to CentOS 5 or CentOS 6. -- SNIP -- -- SNIP (/etc/issue) -- CentOS release 4.x (Final) Kernel \r on an \m NOTICE: Support for CentOS 4 ends on Feb 28th, 2012 -- SNIP -- -- 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

3 6

All is well, don't believe the non-believers
by Zenon Panoussis 03 Mar '11

03 Mar '11

The "progress?" thread carries questions, explanations and arguments, a healthy portion of mud and a bit of fud for spice, but not much is coming out of it, apart from the volume of the conversation itself. So I'll make an attempt at being constructive. If I end up demonstrating my complete ignorance of the build system while also offending people at the same time, just take a moment to bash me and at least enjoy that. There are essentially two crowds here, the one bigger, the other more indispensable: the "we are tired of waiting, WTF is holding up our distros?" crowd and the "we are working our asses off for you and we're sick of your complaining" crowd. Both are right in their own minds, but both have also fully valid arguments, objectively speaking. No solution will work, unless it somewhat meets the needs of both crowds. The most repeated argument from the impatient is that of security updates. The most repeated argument from the patient is that of binary compatibility and the hassles of achieving it. Now I wonder, what's the difference between the 5.5 and the 5.6 build root? I don't know, but I am assuming there is none, because any random package in 5.5 must be upgradable to 5.6 without pulling in an entire distro as a dependency. Hence, it should be possible to build security updates from 5.6 in the 5.5 root and they would be compatible with both 5.5 and 5.6. So then, assuming that that is true, why can't security updates from 5.6 be compiled in the existing 5.5 root together with any specific dependencies they might have, and be released in the 5.5 tree? Doing so would put the CentOS and RH repos out of sync, but would still preserve binary compatibilty. And repo sync has never been a CentOS goal anyway. In other words, we would get package-1.2.3-1.x86_64.el56.rpm in 5.5 and later that very same package would appear in 5.6 as well. yum has no problem with that. The impatient crowd gets security updates. The patient crowd can then take its time to create a quality 5.6 distro. Nobody gets hurt in the process. And there's another similar compromise between speed and perfection, which I suggested already earlier: just release the repo first, as soon as it's ready, and only then start working on the installer ISOs. Then those who already have 5.5 installed and want to upgrade, can just do so. Anyone who wants a fresh 5.6 in a hurry, can install 5.5 and then upgrade it. Those who want a comfortable out-of-the-box 5.6 installer, are more willing to wait. All in all, this way the users can get something faster without the developers having to make any extra effort, so everybody's happy, or at least a bit happier than before. Can somebody please tell me why any of this wouldn't work? Z

4 3

nx.spec file with updates for CentOS 5/CentOS 6
by Nico Kadel-Garcia 02 Mar '11

02 Mar '11

Is there a planned "nx" releae for CentOS 6 extras? This turned out to be pesky to compile under RHEL 6 for tstingq, because the "audiofile-devel" package is not in the core channels, it's in the "optional" channel. I've also updated the 'naxgent' component, and merged overlapping components from the varous centos_ver releases to make the common components clearly listed, and the differences handled separately. I also tend to roll back "release" numbers for locally built components, so that when a reputable repository like CentOS or RPMforge or EPEL publishes them, I get theirs rather than my testing version. My new nx.spec file is attached. Enjoy.

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] progress?
by William L. Sebok 25 Feb '11

25 Feb '11

Any updates on progress, either on 5.6 or 6.0? Bill Sebok Computer Software Manager, Univ. of Maryland, Astronomy Internet: wls(a)astro.umd.edu URL: http://furo.astro.umd.edu/

44 254

[jrd@gerdesas.com: Re: progress?]
by John R. Dennison 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

Mr. Stevens, I feel I owe you, and the list membership, a public retraction and apology for this message. It was uncalled for, and went far beyond even my normal abrasive self. Please accept my sincere apologies for my tone and insinuations; I assure you it will not happen again. John R. Dennison Principle Gerdesas Systems ----- Forwarded message from "John R. Dennison" <jrd(a)gerdesas.com> ----- > Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:17:29 -0600 > From: "John R. Dennison" <jrd(a)gerdesas.com> > To: "Morten P.D. Stevens" <mstevens(a)imt-systems.com> > Cc: "The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel(a)centos.org> > Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] progress? > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:56:12AM +0100, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote: > > > Just take the missing build dependencies from Fedora 12/13. Red Hat > > has probably done the same. > > "Just", "probably". Do these types of guessing games work out > well for you in your professional life? > > > What are you waiting for @ CentOS team??? Until Red Hat released the > > missing build dependencies? > > Do you wake up in the morning thinking of how you can be the > most selfish, arrogant and entitled jerk possible or is it > something that comes to you on the spur of the moment? > > > Then you can probably wait a long time. > > It's a shame that releases can't be done in a fully selective > manner; if so I would plead with and bribe, if necessary, the > CentOS developers to release to everyone *except* you. > > Here's a thought for you: > > How about you no longer comment in a project DEVELOPMENT channel > on those subjects you aren't technically proficient enough to > understand? Even better, how about you just go away? Go use > another distro or attempt to build your own or buy Redhat or > whatever you choose to do; it's quite apparent you aren't happy > here and you likely won't ever be so go try something else. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- "My other computer is your windows box." -- Ralf Hildebrandt

1 0

Motion to moderate this mailing list.
by Antaryami Khuda 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

To all, I would like to file a motion to get admins of this list to set the list to moderated until the centos prjoect releases something tangible to appease the trolls. What do you say karambir? Put ralph in change of post moderation? Jonnhy is obviously busy making packages. Have you others to help? I'm not aware. Your Welcome: Ant.

5 5

netlink_kernel_create() always returns NULL
by YANG 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

My code fragment is below: "*nl_sk = netlink_kernel_create(16, 0, nl_data_ready, THIS_MODULE);"* It can be "make" and "insmod" correctly. But error mesage is printed into log. It indicates the netlink_kernel_create() returns NULL. Once I change the firt parameter to another(<32 && >16), system crash when I execute insmod. Is the protocol ID occupied? Why can't use another and how to define a new ID? I have tried to update net_link.h but fail also.

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] Website Version 2, next steps
by Karanbir Singh 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

On 02/22/2011 09:03 AM, Didi wrote: >> I agree with this. the level of complexity introduced by trying to >> wrangle an existing solution into working for the various properties / >> resources we have might be a lot higher than just doing something simple >> from scratch. > > I started looking at the solutions. The two mentioned have a lot of > features and we have a relatively simple problem. Just to remove any ambiguity : are you saying that the mentioned solutions would work for our given definition of the 'problem'; or that they are too cumbersome and perhaps an overkill for our simple requirements. - KB

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