devel

devel@lists.centos.org

11 participants
4618 discussions

Why does CentOS 5 claim to be i386 compatible when it's really not?
by Martin Jungowski 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

Hi everybody, I've tried to install CentOS 5.5 i386 on an AMD Geode LX 800 processor. That processor, being of the much more recent i586 family, is fully i386- compatible. However, my attempt was brutally shattered when I had to discover that CentOS takes a rather open and surprising attempt at defining x86 compatibility: while claiming to be i386-compatible CentOS 5 requires an i686 processor and does not support the fully i386 but not the least i686 compatible i586 architecture. This is more of a general issue. i386 does not generally refer to "whatever x86-compatible processor is the most recent" but a very well defined and standardized architecture. Specifically, i386 refers to Intels 80386 processor and its 32-bit x86 architecture (which is why x86 are i386 are often used interchangeably when x86 should instead be referring to the 8086 architecture). Code that claims to be i386 compatible has to run on any given microprocessor that claims to be i386 compatible. It's as simple as that: if it doesn't run on i386 processors then it's not i386 compatible. That's industry standard and thus universally valid. If one would claim i386 compatibility but require a x86_64 compatible processor, which of course would be capable of executing standard i386 code, it'd be the exact same issue. It'd be more radical but at its core not different from CentOS's unmet claim of i386 copmpatibility. I guess my question is thus quite simple: why does CentOS 5 claim to be i386 when it's not even remotely i386 compatible? And shouldn't the name reflect code and/or processor family compatibility and affiliation? And in a closely related question of more personal interest: what exactly is it that makes CentOS require an i686 processor? Thanks, Martin -- Rieke Computersysteme GmbH Hellerholz 5 D-82061 Neuried Email: martin[at]rhm[dot]de

9 13

please submit all work-in-progress status's
by Karanbir Singh 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

hi guys aiming to wrap the first tree build today, so if you have any work in progress, please get it into the issue tracker before midnight UTC Thur 9th Dec. This isnt the end of all efforts, its just a milestone, so if you are doing stuff please keep on doing the 'stuff'. - KB

6 8

MacBook Air 3.1
by Marcus Moeller 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

http://dentifrice.poivron.org/laptops/macbookair3,1/ -- Greets Marcus

1 1

build errors with some RHEL6 packages
by Sergio Rubio 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

Good morning everyone, I'm having some problems rebuilding some RHEL6 packages from: http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/ in particular, mock building python-2.6.5 results in: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-2.6.5-3.el6.x86_64 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.py /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.pyc /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.pyo RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.py /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.pyc /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0.debug-gdb.pyo Child returncode was: 1 My build-env is a RedHat Workstation 6, beta2 release, mock 1.1.5-1. I'm looking for suggestions here, as this is my first foray into building recently released upstream RHEL packages: 1. Looks like a bug in the source RPM, but I might be wrong. If so, is it Ok to report it to bugzilla.redhat.com? 2. Something weird in my env being it beta2? My mock profile config attached. Thanks.

12 23

CentOS 5 or 6
by Filip Bartmann 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

I need to start my server in Janurary 2011, so I need to know when it's planned to release CentOS 6 to make decisiion if I use current CentOS 5 or CentOS 6 on this server. Plan you release CentOS 6 to January 2011? Thank's for your response Filip Bartmann

4 3

Rebranding Help
by James Stull 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Greetings, a couple weeks ago I sent an email to Ralph and he pointed me to the dev list. Long story short, I would like to help with the Centos 6 release any way I can and was told that you are currently working on rebranding. And that this is the process I needed to follow: http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/6/Round1 I've been reading through the wiki on how to get started but honestly I don't know where to start and I'm asking for some direction. Is their a dev repo where I can download the current version of "Centos 6" or do I simply download RHEL 6 and look through the bug list and try to find more packages/man pages/etc that need to be rebranded?? Some direction would be great. If I can help out in any way please let me know. If their are any documents/processes I need to review please let me know. I don't have any programming experience but I can do some minor scripting. I'm familiar with Red Hat/Fedora/Centos and currently Admin a handful of boxes. Thanks for the help and direction. --James

2 4

pastebin.centos.org broken
by Phil Schaffner 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

http://pastebin.centos.org/ is saying "Unable to connect to database" today. Phil

2 1

CentOS - rawhide
by Filip Bartmann 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Why there is no CentOS rawhide repo such in Fedora? Thanks, Filip Bartmann

5 7

[Florian.LaRoche@gmx.net: Re: Reality V/s Fantasy]
by Florian La Roche 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Seems this email didn't go through to the mailinglist, so I'll resend it now. regards, Florian La Roche ----- Forwarded message from Florian La Roche <Florian.LaRoche(a)gmx.net> ----- From: Florian La Roche <Florian.LaRoche(a)gmx.net> To: "The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel(a)centos.org> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:31:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Reality V/s Fantasy Hello KB, > One of the main things that the QA team needs to work with is > whitelisting for release, the branding stuff. That intself means the qa > team needs to stay small, non public access to early code builds. Also Red Hat distributes the source without restrictions and e.g. kernel.org is mirroring it out on all its mirror systems, so there is no requirement to keep the CentOS source hidden due to branding/whitelisting issues AFAIK. I agree that binaries should maybe be kept until the branding and major patching items are resolved, but clearly all this is a chicken-egg situation on how to grow the participation for CentOS, right? regards, Florian La Roche ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

11IEA-AIE-SS-ROS
by Savaş TAKAN 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Dear potential author, we are organising a special session on robot operating systems: http://dive.iyte.edu.tr/11IEA-AIE-SS-ROS/RobotOS.html Please consider submitting a paper. Sincerely, Bora -- Savaş TAKAN

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