devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4653 discussions

Looking for input from EPEL
by Stephen John Smoogen 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Please forgive a possible repeat post. I did not see this in the archives so was not sure if it had gotten sent. With the differences between EL-6 architectures we are finding that we need to build things for PPC or i386 that Upstream x86_64 has. Due to people not wanting to have a different RPM spec file from upstream we will end up with an x86_64 package set too.. which as the good old Fat Controller would say "causes confusion and delay". So in order to satisfy various factions we are looking at add a COST to EPEL so that it would be higher than the default 1000 (say 1100). What I would like to know is if this would affect CentOS-6, SciLin-6 or other repos so that we can deal with it now versus later. [And as much as I would like to go with repotags.. that has been seen as a non-starter.] -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines

6 9

json interface
by JohnS 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Not to mix up the prior thread "Looking for input from EPEL". On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:57 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > We are > already working towards having a public build queue that exposes a json > interface, so automating stuff around that should not be hard for anyone. --- Will there be a Public Query API for the json interface? Would you elaborate some more on it please as you say it will be a build queue. Is it workable at present (beta)? Sounds interesting, John

2 1

Loading pre-built for Red Hat kernel modules
by Ross McKerchar 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

Hi Guys, I have a product which requires it's own kernel module. The vendor provides pre-built kernel modules that are compiled against the stock Red Hat kernels but the product does not successfully identify and load these binary modules on my Cent OS machines. I'm in a discussion with the vendor about fixing this so that the product successfully identifies the Red Hat modules as compatible. However we're not sure if these binary modules will indeed be 100% compatible with the corresponding Cent OS kernel for any given version. The concern was that tiny differences between the kernels, say, the name of the build host, could change the address of a data structure in the kernel which the pre-built module attempts to use. Does this sound like a valid concern? Where does the attempt to provide 100% binary compatibility end? The source for these kernel modules is actually available but I am trying to avoid having to build custom modules. Thanks for your help! -ross

4 3

EOL plans for C3
by Karanbir Singh 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

hi Guys, CentOS-3 goes EOL in about 3 months. I was thinking we should do a couple of things for this milestone : 1) Setup and run an education campaign to inform users about this. 2) Put together some documents that clearly lay down the options that users have at this point, and going forward ( Migration options, upgrade paths, virtualised containers etc ) 3) Put together some scripts that might help people with various options from point-2. Of-course, doing some of (2) and (3) before (1) would make (1) more effective. So, at this time - is there anyone who wants to step forward to take this task up as co-ordinator and lead ? - KB

10 18

nx/freenx updates
by Akemi Yagi 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

CentOS developers, I now have updates to nx/freenx that address the following bug reports: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4428 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4422 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4409 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4408 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4398 Could you please publish them in the extras repo as before? You can find the srpms here: http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/nx-3.4.0-5.el5.ay.src.rpm and http://centos.toracat.org/misc/nx/5/SRPMS/freenx-0.7.3-5.el5.ay.src.rpm I thanks people who reported bugs, offered fix/enhancements and performed testing. Akemi

4 16

Re: [CentOS-devel] [packagers] Re: wine 1.2 packages
by Dag Wieers 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > >> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others) > > Yes!!! > > Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable > dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the > standard base repository. > >> It could be: >> >> >> What do people think ? > > From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2 > characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-) But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-) Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras" repository, so: .rf. rpmforge stable (additional packages) .rfb. rpmforge buildtools (buildtools, not required) .rft. rpmforge testing (test stuff, no guarantee) .rfx. rpmforge extras (packages replacing base) Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository. If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base. -- -- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

3 2

wine 1.2 packages
by Janez Kosmrlj 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

Hi there, I made wine 1.2 packages for centos. I would like to share them but i don't have a public repository. Is there a place, where i could upload this packages. Maybe someone else would need them too. The packages are built to my needs, so they don't have winetricks or desktop integration, but they work. Regards Janez

3 4

centos site down?
by Akemi Yagi 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

I cannot connect to www.centos.org and related sites. It was noticed that access to the forums has been very slow today. Now the site is totally inaccessible. Akemi

3 7

rpms development
by Nickos H 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

Why centos does not have something similar like this: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/

5 9

Re: [CentOS-devel] [CentOS] WAS/CentOS 5.5 latest revisions seem really slow//Now Where are the Kernels?
by JohnS 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 00:41 -0700, Mark wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, JohnS <jses27(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You can do: > > rpm -q --changelog kernel >> changelog.log \ > > rpm -q --changelog kernel-2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 >> changelog.log > > > > To view the changelog for patches and BZs Applied to the kernel or any > > rpm. As in load up the newest one and run the command. I see a lot of > > changes between the newest one and the one (194.3.1) that you tried and > > said solved it. I would creep on up in versions to the newest one you > > can run with out the problem then file a bug report with a good > > description of the problem and type of hardware also (i think important > > for your problem). > > > > Egad - on the CentOS mirror I checked (USC), there are no kernels > between 194.3.1 and 194.8.1. Sun May 02 2010 Jiri Pirko <jpirko(a)redhat.com> [2.6.18-194.3.1.el5] Well that one you have. Why do you have it? Because I guess an @CentOS.org Hat decided to build that one while all the other ones were plain out skipped in-between? My ohh my the Heart and Soul was forgotten. All of 4 - FOUR of them. Effectively your stuck with the one you got that works or you have to learn to build your own from the red hat sources. > If I just build kernels from the Linux archives, would those just work > as-is under CentOS? I haven't actually done that in a while, but if > it's moderately safe using the "standard" spec files.... Maybe so be carefull. So insightfully what I do for my precious customers on CentOS is I actually build the updates from the RH Sources to keep them happy because some do like to plunder about when are updates coming out. Maybe the cache directory eatted them up? John

1 1

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