devel

devel@lists.centos.org

4618 discussions

debuginfo packages on the mirrors
by Fabian Arrotin 16 Apr '09

16 Apr '09

Just to inform that some *debuginfo* packages have landed on some mirrors. For example the latest kernel 2.6.18-128.1.6.el5 (and all his variants) has the corresponding debuginfo package. I just saw that when i updated my local tree at home and was wondering why it was so slow just to fetch the latest kernel rpms .. of course with ~150mb of debuginfo per kernel variant , that makes the difference .. :D example : http://mirrors.ircam.fr/pub/CentOS/5.3/updates/i386/RPMS/ -- -- Fabian Arrotin idea=`grep -i clue /dev/brain` test -z "$idea" && echo "sorry, init 6 in progress" || sh ./answer.sh

8 22

Re: [CentOS-devel] Updated xfs-kmod?
by James Pearson 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>Do you have any rough estimate when this might be available? > > > I'm hoping within a month or two... in the meantime, unless you have > serious problems w/ the original centos kmod, I'd just stick with that. > If there are specific problems with it I could help you find the right > backports, I think. I've just noticed that the 5.4 pre-release 2.6.18-138.el5 kernel at <http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5/138.el5/> has the following changelog entries: - [fs] xfs: backport to rhel5.4 kernel (Eric Sandeen ) [470845] - [fs] xfs: update to 2.6.28.6 codebase (Eric Sandeen ) [470845] Does this mean RedHat will 'support' XFS in 5.4 ??? Thanks James Pearson

2 1

no drbd after update to 5.3
by Jerry Amundson 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

I have a dual xen/drbd cluster now broken after the 5.3 update Saturday. FATAL: Could not open '/lib/modules/2.6.18-128.1.6.el5xen/weak-updates/drbd82/drbd.ko': No such file or directory I'll research further when I get to the office. Thanks, jerry

4 16

i386/noarch RPMS differences between x86_64 and i386 repos?
by James Pearson 14 Apr '09

14 Apr '09

I have my own local copies of the CentOS 5.3 x86_64 and i386 repos - and to save space, I ran 'hardlink' over the RPMS directories - however it found that a number of the i386 and noarch RPMS in the x86_64 tree were 'different' from the matching RPMS in the i386 tree. Out of the 1186 i386/noarch RPMS on the 5.3 x86_64 iso image, 222 are different from the matching i386/noarch RPMS from the i386 iso image The difference appears to be the 'Signature' date - the rest of the info from 'rpm -qi' appears identical. Most of these 'different' RPMS are ones that have been updated in 5.3 Is there a reason why these RPMS have a different signature date? Not a major issue ... Thanks James Pearson

3 2

Repository metadata problems
by Dag Wieers 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

Hi, I today have a problem as well with metadata being newer than what is available on disk. I wonder whether we should require from mirrors to use rsync with --delay-updates as problems with repository metadata was exactly why we got this feature added to rsync a couple of years ago. We could enforce it from the CentOS mirrors by checking the rsync version and/or options provided to the server. Is something like this feasible ? ---- [root@moria ~]# apt-get update; apt-get upgrade Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64 repomd.xml [1140B] Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64 repomd.xml [951B] Get:3 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64 repomd.xml [951B] Get:4 http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge repomd.xml [1095B] Get:5 http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ repomd.xml [951B] Get:6 http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ repomd.xml [951B] Fetched 6039B in 0s (8752B/s) Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/os/x86_64/ filelists.xml Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ primary.xml [110kB] Hit http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge/ primary.xml Hit http://apt.sw.be redhat/el5/en/x86_64/rpmforge/ filelists.xml Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ filelists.xml [674kB] Hit http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://rpm.guifications.org centos/5/x86_64/ filelists.xml Hit http://rpm.pidgin.im centos/5/x86_64/ filelists.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64/ primary.xml Hit http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/extras/x86_64/ filelists.xml Fetched 784kB in 0s (936kB/s) Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded NetworkManager (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-glib (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-glib.32bit (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager-gnome (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) NetworkManager.32bit (0.7.0-3.el5 => 0.7.0-4.el5_3) firefox (3.0.6-1.el5.centos => 3.0.7-1.el5.centos) firefox.32bit (3.0.6-1.el5.centos => 3.0.7-1.el5.centos) ntp (4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos => 4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1) xen (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xen-libs (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xen-libs.32bit (3.0.3-80.el5 => 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2) xulrunner (1.9.0.6-1.el5 => 1.9.0.7-3.el5) xulrunner.32bit (1.9.0.6-1.el5 => 1.9.0.7-3.el5) 13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 removed and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 52.5MB of archives. After unpacking 3968kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-gnome 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [344kB] Get:2 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-glib.32bit 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [82.1kB] Get:3 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager.32bit 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [1093kB] Get:4 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [1096kB] Get:5 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ NetworkManager-glib 1:0.7.0-4.el5_3 [83.4kB] Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xulrunner 1.9.0.7-3.el5 404 Not Found Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xulrunner.32bit 1.9.0.7-3.el5 404 Not Found Get:6 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ firefox 3.0.7-1.el5.centos [12.5MB] Get:7 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ firefox.32bit 3.0.7-1.el5.centos [12.5MB] Err http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ ntp 4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1 404 Not Found Get:8 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen-libs 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [145kB] Get:9 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [1845kB] Get:10 http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be centos/5/updates/x86_64/ xen-libs.32bit 3.0.3-80.el5_3.2 [148kB] Fetched 29.8MB in 24s (1209kB/s) Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/xulrunner… 404 Not Found Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/xulrunner… 404Not Found Failed to fetch http://centos.mirrors.skynet.be/pub//centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/ntp-4.2.2… 404 Not Found E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? ---- -- -- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

5 5

5.3´s anaconda src.rpm missing
by Farkas Levente 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

hi, it seems that the anaconda src.rpm missing from the mirror sites SRPMS dir. is there any reason for this or it´s just a bug? thanks in advance. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

16 22

Re: [CentOS-devel] [CentOS-qa] RPM issue
by Phil Schaffner 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:47 -0400, R P Herrold wrote: > My first thought was: The only other list it might move to is > not a centos list -- we don't ship the package 'expressing' > this behaviour, as I read the ticket ["EPEL rhnlib package"]. I think the EPEL package provides an example of the symptom, but is not directly relevant. > But if it is to a centos list, I would put this thread on > centos-devel, and not the main list, which would trigger an > endless quantity of side noise. Agree that -devel would be a better venue if the discussion continues. I put it here because it seemed to be a QA issue when reported on the forums. Cross-posting to -devel, so this thread should presumably be considered closed. ... > > I do not see mention that a bug was filed, and to the extent > that forum answers by 'authoritative answerers' there do not > feed the bug tracker, we hide knowledge of possible errors > from ourselves by leaving it only in the forum I didn't file one, nor encourage the OP on the forum to do so, because I was unsure where to file it. Brandon has opened: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3517 Phil

1 0

forums + portal for {lang}.centos.org sites
by Graeme Spence 09 Apr '09

09 Apr '09

Hi, My name is Graeme, I'm a member of the Simple Machines team and I do apologize if I'm posting this to the wrong spot, however if the main issue against our software SMF is the licensing issue regarding re- distribution were quite up for negotiating an agreement as we have done with others. If SMF was being redistributed would it be modified in any way or just a standard SMF package? Its very nice to be considered and we would happily help in any way we can. Thanks, Graeme

2 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] RPM issue
by Brandon Davidson 08 Apr '09

08 Apr '09

I'm moving this here from from the QA list. For those who missed the original thread, it's linked from the bug report. http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3517 -Brandon Brandon Davidson wrote: > If you look at the spec file for specspo, the string replacement is done > with a patch, so it's not just an overeager sed script... but it does seem like > some of the replacements are unnecessary. > > Other inappropriate translations are present for rhn-client-tools, rhnsd, and > rhn-setup-gnome. The mysqlclient10 package also refers to "CentOS 9" instead of > "Red Hat Linux 9". I'm sure there are others I'm overlooking. > > For the next release, perhaps someone could update the patch to remove > translations for upstream packages that have been removed from CentOS, as well > as going over the remainder to make sure they all make sense? -- Brandon Davidson Systems Administrator University of Oregon Neuroinformatics Center (541) 346-2417 brandond(a)uoregon.edu Key Fingerprint 1F08 A331 78DF 1EFE F645 8AE5 8FBE 4147 E351 E139

5 7

Re: [CentOS-devel] Welcome to the "CentOS-devel" mailing list (Digest mode)
by V Srikanth 06 Apr '09

06 Apr '09

Hello. Does CentOS have plans to release a build of Redhat MRG? If not, please, please consider doing it. _________________________________________________________________ Drag n’ drop—Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx

3 4

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