devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4653 discussions

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

Reality V/s Fantasy
by Karanbir Singh 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Hi Florian, On 11/26/2010 10:41 AM, Florian La Roche wrote: > you should make sure to grow the CentOS development to a > bigger group and make it more stable. AKAIK this is the > goal of this list and there should be plenty of work to > distribute and get done. I am not sure where that came from - there is some level of fantasy that some of you guys seem to live with. Lets take for example the request for help with branding and trademark searches in the el6 source base. Then look at the people who really did anything to help, take the usual suspects out of the loop, and then see what the number reduces to.. Consider this : the distro was ready to QA in 72 hrs from when upstream dropped all srpms into the right places. I actually requested the 'usual suspects'[1] to not get involved with the branding issues, we all have quite a bit going on and adding onto that at release time usually means slowing down or dropping other efforts; the intention was to not do that, and to bring in a larger user base who can help cover issues that don't need specific centos resources. Also, the QA effort tends to be exceptionally manic, with things changing on an hourly basis, and some of us pushing for testing, results quite aggressively. Besides that, new release, new buildsys, new repo structure and new process meant that this would be fantastic time for a larger number of people to get involved, and stay involved. Starting from the root of what we do, and having a good understanding of context around it, why its a big deal and appreciate it in specific terms by working on it. The original email asking for help on this was posted on the 12th Nov. Its the 26th now. Check https://bugs.centos.org/ to see what level of participation has been forthcoming. Lots of people will argue that open source works in a way where people do what they want to do, so you cant tell them what needs doing - and they will do what they want, when they want. Its what many imagine is the 'fun' in the open source way. Fortunately, or unfortunately we dont have that luxury. What comes down the pipe needs to be addressed, sometimes its what we want to do - and sometimes its what needs doing because that's the issue on hand. The process we have in place is mostly finite, with a specified origin and a specified delivery expectation. We need to join those dots. And if people don't want to help with that joining-the-dots effort, they are never going to be a part of the process. So when people imply that there are lots of potential-contributers who would want to get involved and help etc : What fantasy world are they looking at ? I, or one, would like to get in on that action please. > No fights please, CentOS has such a wonderful source > base to extend upon... If we cant get traction to get on with just doing what our primary aim is, extending the code base looks to be a bit of another fantasy world. Slightly frustrating ? Absolutely. - KB [1]: The usual suspects being the people already doing quite a bit, the core/dev team, the qa guys, artwork effort. And I am truly grateful for their support.

12 21

Fasttrack for C-5
by Alan Bartlett 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

Karanbir, Is there an ETA for this repository yet? A status update would be appreciated, please. Regards, Alan.

10 33

handling ABRT
by Karanbir Singh 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

hi, EL6 now includes abrt ( https://fedorahosted.org/abrt/ ), which is setup to talk with bugzilla.r.c and comes with a plugin that allows details passed to rhsupport. We dont really want either of those two things to happen. So we can either : - Remove abrt completely ( might not be the best overall solution, but it would surely be the fastest short term target ) - Leave abrt in the distro, but disable chatter abilities with anything *.r.c; and *.fedoraproject.org ( that leaves functionality partially intact, but local implementations would need to adopt and go with whatever they want / need; this solution might not be as nice as the last option) - Last option: get a plugin together that can do what's needed to file at bugs.c.o ( we might need a few more people to get involved with triage and handling of issues via that route! ) Who wants to take on the task of handling abrt, getting the work done and driving this issue into CentOS-6 ? Being able to code in python might not be optional.. - KB

14 39

build errors with RHEL6 packages
by Hubert Bahr 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

On 11/13/2010 02:17 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 11/13/2010 08:25 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: >>/ - what os, version do you use on build hosts? /> > CentOS-5.5 >>/ - which version of mock and ccache do you use? / > no ccache, mock-0.6.3 >/ - and what mock config do you use? / > nothing interesting in the mock configs. If there is nothing interesting in the mock configs why not share them. The config really defines the build environment not the host and not necessarily the version of mock. It is the default installs + the packages to meet dependancies and where they come from. >>/ since it's well known that there are some packages (like bash, nss) / ? because you have those problems, does not mean everyone else will. >>/ which can not be build in mock on rhel-6: />>/ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613392 />>/ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609201 />>/ so it's rather strange that build complete without issues. / > Speak to the people who have the problems ? These packages have all > clearly built not only for fedora, but also for red hat - and going by > the changelogs, quite a few times. > - KB Since I have built all but 36 packages on both 1686 and x86_64 with rpmbuild I am very interested in resolving the differences in build environments. Once I too have a stable build environment I would be interested in working on the rebranding etc. But I would like to be able to test and make sure my changes are not causing the problems not the Build environment. I am building on RHEL6 + updates. Hubert

3 5

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