devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4653 discussions

Trac 0.11 Theme Customization
by Alain Reguera Delgado 19 Mar '09

19 Mar '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Guys, We have a theme customization for trac-0.11.3-1.el5.rf in: https://projects.centos.org/svn/artwork/trunk/Extras/Trac/0.11 and some screenshots in: https://projects.centos.org/trac/artwork/browser/trunk/Extras/Trac/0.11/Tou… It would be nice if someone could test it and comment about it. After that, I think that the Trac upgrade planned some time ago could take place if nothing else delays it. Best Regards, - -- Alain Reguera Delgado <al(a)ciget.cienfuegos.cu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJwVdqyXxCQEoXDZARAoTsAJwOFl4wjnuwVDFnwnXlP5hKBIlY0ACgzBdP RkuN7WdUtHmIelrAP4h8ow8= =wwS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS-devel Digest, Vol 49, Issue 12
by Michael Hall 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

> > I've been struggling to install the httpd 2.2.8, php 5.2.6 and postgresql 8.2.9 RPMS in testing on a minimal CentOS 5.2 due to issues with libpq and apr-utils. I put these packages into a custom repo, assigned then to a custom group in comps.xml, and am working with kickstart. > > Anyway, it appears apr-util is a dependency of httpd. apr-util in turn depends on libpq.so.4, provided by postgresql-libs. > libpq.so.4 should be provided by > postgresqlclient81-8.1.11-1.el5s2.x86_64.rpm in the same repository. > > The postgresql-libs 8.2.9 package installs libpq.so.5, so things go belly up and won't install (no apr-utils, therefore no httpd, therefore no php). > > > > If however I install the compat-postgresql-libs package from http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.3/redhat/rhel-5-x86_64/repoview/applications.dat…, > > installation of all packages proceeds. This package obviously reconciles the lippq.so.4/libpq.so.5 conflict. > > > > So maybe something like this package is needed in testing? Except that I want to install PG 8.2.9 (from testing), which appears to install libpq.so.5 Do you mean that postgresqlclient81-8.1.11-1.el5s2.x86_64.rpm is similar to the compat-postgresql-libs RPM I mentioned above? Is it happy to install without dependency problems alongside PG 8.2.9?

2 1

Spacewalk client tools inclusion
by Justin Sherrill 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Hi All, I'm working on getting the rhn-client tools (that have traditionally been not included in centos) into the distro so it can be used with spacewalk more easily and invite any of those interested to help. Since 5.3 has already been released, we're targeting to include it in extras for now. I've created a wiki page to track the progress here: https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/CentPackages I figured a meeting would be good for interested parties to discuss what needs to be done and to divvy up the tasks. How about next Wednesday (3/25) at 21:00 GMT (5:00 pm EST). Thanks -- Justin Sherrill, RHCA 1801 Varisty Drive. Software Engineer Raleigh, NC 27603 Red Hat, Inc.

2 2

Postgresql RPMS in testing
by Michael Hall 16 Mar '09

16 Mar '09

I know everyone is probably flat out with 5.3 at the moment, but this is some feedback on the Postgresql 8.2.9 RPMS in testing. I've been struggling to install the httpd 2.2.8, php 5.2.6 and postgresql 8.2.9 RPMS in testing on a minimal CentOS 5.2 due to issues with libpq and apr-utils. I put these packages into a custom repo, assigned then to a custom group in comps.xml, and am working with kickstart. Anyway, it appears apr-util is a dependency of httpd. apr-util in turn depends on libpq.so.4, provided by postgresql-libs. The postgresql-libs 8.2.9 package installs libpq.so.5, so things go belly up and won't install (no apr-utils, therefore no httpd, therefore no php). If however I install the compat-postgresql-libs package from http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.3/redhat/rhel-5-x86_64/repoview/applications.dat…, installation of all packages proceeds. This package obviously reconciles the lippq.so.4/libpq.so.5 conflict. So maybe something like this package is needed in testing? Thanks, hope the feedback proves useful, Mick

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] Automatic RPM dependencies based on egg metadata
by Scott Silva 13 Mar '09

13 Mar '09

on 3-13-2009 1:39 AM Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) spake the following: > Based on my earlier work, it brings me much pleasure to contribute the > attached patch (which requires the earlier, lexicographical-order patch > to be applied first). The following attached file makes distutils > automatically add dependencies to the Requires: field in the RPM spec > file, if the egg metadata specifies any primary dependency. > > > With this patch, it is no longer needed to manually specify your > dependencies in both setup.cfg and requires.txt. DRY FTW! > > > regards, > -- I am not taking sides on this issue, but you would probably get farther with this if you submit the patches upstream. CentOS doesn't do a lot of patching to upstream code unless it is necessary for the build process. If you get this past RedHat, it will flow down to CentOS. That is the path you would need to follow. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] [PHP 5.2.6] Feedback / Centos Testing and CentOS Extras
by Phil Schaffner 12 Mar '09

12 Mar '09

Paulo Martinez wrote: > - Sorry for double posting. The Archive was not including my post. - > - For the sake of them, which only read through the archive. - I still can't find Paulo's posts in the archive. Are they being rejected for some reason? > > Hi Devel, > > just to communicate. php from c5-testing is working so far: > > rpm -qa |grep php > php-soap-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-gd-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-ldap-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-common-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-cli-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-bcmath-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-xml-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-mbstring-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-pear-Auth-SASL-1.0.2-4.el5.centos > php-imap-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-pear-1.4.9-4.el5.1 > php-pdo-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-dba-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-mysql-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > php-xmlrpc-5.2.6-2.el5s2 > > > At time of installation with: > > yum --enablerepo=c5-testing update php > > There were no dependencies errors from php packages > of extras repo like php-mcrypt but they should because > the of the changed AP-Interface for php-modules. > Anyway, the installation/upgrade runs flawless. > > In my environment there were following packages of extras repo > > php-mcrypt > php-mhash > php-pecl-Fileinfo > > Deleting this php-modules resolves this (issue of starting httpd): > > > PHP Warning: PHP Startup: fileinfo: Unable to initialize module\nModule > compiled with module API=20050922, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nPHP > compiled with module API=20060613, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nThese > options need to match\n in Unknown on line 0 > PHP Warning: PHP Startup: mcrypt: Unable to initialize module\nModule > compiled with module API=20050922, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nPHP > compiled with module API=20060613, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nThese > options need to match\n in Unknown on line 0 > PHP Warning: PHP Startup: mhash: Unable to initialize module\nModule > compiled with module API=20050922, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nPHP > compiled with module API=20060613, debug=0, thread-safety=0\nThese > options need to match\n in Unknown on line 0 > > > I am sure all extra-repo packages > > php-* > php-pecl* > > have to be touched to run also with centosplus candidate php 5.2.x > > --- > > i had php-eaccelerator installed and now removed. I will recompile it > in the next days. I wonder, CentOSPlus/CentOSWebStack for Centos 4 have > php-eaccelerator. What do you think about a package for Centos 5? > > For now - thank you. > > Best Regards > > P.M.

2 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] [Distutils] SOLVED: bdist_rpm and pre-release python packages / eggs (was: pre-release versioning problems with sdist, bdist_rpm, bdist_debian)
by Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 12 Mar '09

12 Mar '09

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 21:52 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote: > Manuel, > Additionally, from a Python Distutils perspective, Distutils should > not be enforcing one distro's policy. There are RPM-based distro's that > DO NOT follow fedora's packaging policy. Actually, Fedora people have been approached by other distros because they want to adopt most or all of the policies due to its comprehensiveness. But you didn't hear this from me. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com>

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] testing centos 5 kernels
by Farkas Levente 11 Mar '09

11 Mar '09

Alan Bartlett wrote: > On 08/03/2009, Farkas Levente <lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org> wrote: > >> now one last question/remark about the page: >> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Custom_Kernel >> in sec 4. you wrote to comment out the >> "if a rhel kernel, apply the rhel config options" >> blocks, but for me it's not working. ie. in case of >> kernel-2.6.18-128.1.1.el5 if i comment out that part then i've got an >> error during kernel compile: >> ----------------------------------------- >> + for i in '*.config' >> + mv kernel-2.6.18-i686-PAE.config .config >> ++ head -1 .config >> ++ cut -b 3- >> + Arch=i386 >> + make ARCH=i386 nonint_oldconfig >> CONFIG_PATA_ISAPNP >> make[1]: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 1 >> make: *** [nonint_oldconfig] Error 2 >> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.88925 (%prep) >> ----------------------------------------- >> while if i leave it there than compile without any problem. anyway >> config-rhel-generic contains only option which are not set so why would >> be useful to comment out? >> so imho that part is not required what's more not working. >> yours. > > I am sorry but I do not see from where your problem arises. It is > possibly related to a language issue. > > What I will say is that the technique described has been necessary to > enable a user to build a customised CentOS kernel ever since the very > first kernel-2.6.18-8.el5 package was released. > > Will you please formulate your uncertainty into a question and then > post it to the CentOS-5 General Support forum. In that way my > colleague, good friend and co-maintainer of the article -- Akemi Yagi > (aka toracat) -- may also see what it is that concerns you. We may > then be able to clarify things. ok so let me clarify this. imho keep the diff from rh's spec as little as possible is a good goal. on page sec 4: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Custom_Kernel you wrote to delete/comment out the "if a rhel kernel, apply the rhel config options" part which is imho unnecessary, what's more wrong. the file config-rhel-generic contains only commented out kernel config options (except the CONFIG_RAW_DRIVER=y). so these won't hurt anyone. and if someone add the same kernel config param to the resulting config then the first kernel config ie: make -s ARCH=$Arch nonint_oldconfig > /dev/null will ignore those commented out configs. so i don't really understand the reason for this advice since it won't hurt anyone but can cause errors (like in my case in the above kernel compile error). ps. anyway i also not understand why you prefer to modify rh's spec from: %define with_debug %{?_without_debug: 0} %{!?_without_debug: 1} to %define with_debug 0 instead of suggest to build with --without debug --without debuginfo? pss. i we discuss this page:-) for me it's totally the same, but why you prefer/suggest to use %define buildid .your_identifier over to add a suffix to the dist tag (while you also modify dist in centosplus kernels)? yours. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

2 1

CentOS and Google's Summer of Code
by Karanbir Singh 11 Mar '09

11 Mar '09

This year, the CentOS Project is going to make a pitch for and hopefully get onto the Google Summer of Code process. And we need people to come work with us on managing the process, mentoring projects that get adopted and also help with infrastructure and be backups for other mentors. If you are interested and have the time + inclination to help out: get onto the CentOS-GSOC list ( http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-gsoc ) and send an email with a brief introduction on who you are, what you do with CentOS ( or where you use it and how ) and some details on what you would like to help with. The whole effort is being coordinated by Bill Scheel. But he's the person most likely to be around answering questions and helping out with new people who join up. Marcus and Ralph are backing him up! So expect to see plenty of them around as well. See you on the list. And do hurry, were sort of short on time! -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq

1 0

CentOS 5.3 ETA?
by Axel Thimm 08 Mar '09

08 Mar '09

Hi, just a question on whether there is a known ETA for it. The reason I'm asking is that I accidentially removed some 5.2. kernel support from ATrpms (not for the 5.2 plus kernels, just the vendor ones) and if 5.3 would take longer I would rebuild the erased bits. Otherwise I would ask the users to wait for a couple of days. Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

21 29

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