devel

devel@lists.centos.org

5 participants
4663 discussions

nx.spec file with updates for CentOS 5/CentOS 6
by Nico Kadel-Garcia 03 Mar '11

03 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

Re: [CentOS-devel] Watch One, Do One, Teach One (the simple teaching method used in medical schools)
by Antaryami Khuda 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

> While it is understood that it is not the responsibility of the CentOS > Team to teach the community, nevertheless, it would be helpful if the > CentOS Team (or others in the know) could list a handful of packages > that are among the 600 Johnny reports as requiring attention in C6, > preferably some that won't even compile, others that require > comparison with the upstream binaries to note the problem. Dearest Larry, I AM SO FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR ENDLESS DRIVEL PASSING THROUGH MY INBOX, I may give up on this distro based on you and you ALONE. PS: Shouldn't you be busy running your business rather than running your fingers on a mailing list? PS #2: Looking at your business website, it appears your "store" is low on product. Perhaps you should concentrate on things that matter? Graciously: Ant.

3 2

Watch One, Do One, Teach One (the simple teaching method used in medical schools)
by Larry Vaden 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

While it is understood that it is not the responsibility of the CentOS Team to teach the community, nevertheless, it would be helpful if the CentOS Team (or others in the know) could list a handful of packages that are among the 600 Johnny reports as requiring attention in C6, preferably some that won't even compile, others that require comparison with the upstream binaries to note the problem. N.B.: . for C 3, 4 and 5, to date, we've watched nearly 4,000 (albeit it was hard to see anything other than the outcome, which was GREAT) . many of us are ready and would like to do one, so please tell us which packages in the corpus will result in a failure in a stock/vanilla build environment. . perhaps somewhere between C6 and C7 some will pass muster. THANKS for your consideration of the use of this widely used method of teaching MDs, DVMs, DDSs, et al. kind regards/ldv/vaden(a)texoma.net

1 0

php-5.2.x needs adopting
by Karanbir Singh 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

hi guys, We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now. Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ? Regards, - KB

10 19

a little levity and a URL for a PhD thesis about Trusting Trust
by Larry Vaden 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

While learning from rpm and yum guru Jeff Johnson offlist, the thought occurred that some might enjoy reading <http://www.dwheeler.com/fourfours/> and Dr. Wheeler's thesis entitled "Fully Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse Double-Compiling" at <http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/dissertation/html/wheeler-trusting-t…>. Enjoy!

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel