devel

devel@lists.centos.org

3 participants
4676 discussions

Building CentOS for Alpha/AXP and SPARC
by Martin P. Kalitis 23 Apr '07

23 Apr '07

Hello all, I originaly sent this email to Ralph Angenendt and he suggested posting it to the devel mailing list.I have had a look at the CentOS distro and noticed that you are looking for a maintainer for SPARC. Whilst I don't have access to a SPARC system as yet I do have access to an AXP (ALPHA) and noticed that the latest build/release you have for this platform is 4.3 and not 4.4 or 5. If you need extra resources to help make the newer releases happen for the AXP platform, I am more than willing to help out where I can. I work as a systems developer and have a background not only in development but also systems administration which includes building custom toolchains and embedded versions of Linux for various hardware platforms. Initially I can begin work on producing a AXP release with a SPARC release following once the hardware hits my doorstep. Let me know if you are interested in my offer. Thanks, Martin.

1 0

bugs in an Spanish Instalation...
by Roger Peña 22 Apr '07

22 Apr '07

Hi centos dev If I chose to install centos5 in spanish, I found that some text are still in english, like in: 1- Software selection: first sentence "The default instalation of CentOS includes ...." texts in the rest of the page are in spanish though :-) 2- When selecting specific or individuals packages in one group (KDE group) the description of each package is in english, although the name of the groups packages are in spanish 3- In the Donation Slide, the title is in English . probabily this is our fault :-( because I could not see the title in the Artwork translation page: http://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/rnotes/Translations#head-6310e1248c5e7bbd6bb… what should we do? update/fix the wiki page? thanks for give us this nice distribution :-) very good work cu roger __________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA ) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 3

How can I search in bugzilla.centos.org ?
by Roger Peña 22 Apr '07

22 Apr '07

Hi I was trying to find if someone reported a litle, very litle, bug in yum.conf file but I could not see how to make a search in centos bugzilla page :-( the litle bug is, probabily reported, that distropkg is set to redhat-release insted to centos-release, like this: distroverpkg=centos-release BTW, I am exploring centos5-x86_64 :-) I forgot to mention it in my previous mail also, it would be nice if anaconda fail more polite when it can't find 'groups definitions' in the repos files, right now it just make a break with a "send a bug report" messages and abort instalation. I know that should not happen but .... sometime do :-) I notice that when I try to make an instalation via http but creating the repos with creatrepo command in centos-4.4 (not using the dvd iso, just copying the rpms and creating the repo), I forgot to create the groups, so the instalations fail over and over againg until I realize what was the problem, sadly I had to go over and over again through all initial steps I know that is not a bug, just a RFE but ... thanks roger __________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA ) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

syslog-ng
by Richard Shade 19 Apr '07

19 Apr '07

CentOS Team, We have rebuilt syslog-ng based on the Fedora Core 6 Extras SRPM on CentOS 5. We would like to contribute it to the repository. Below are the links to the files need to build syslog-ng. You will need to install libol to complete a re-build. Thanks for your time and CentOS 5. SPEC: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightscale_scripts_dev/syslog-ng.spec SRPM: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightscale_scripts_dev/syslog-ng-1.6.12-1.el5.cento… RPM: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightscale_scripts_dev/syslog-ng-1.6.12-1.el5.cento… LIBOL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rightscale_scripts_dev/libol-0.3.18.tar.gz Richard Shade RightScale http://www.rightscale.com/

1 1

Jigdoes of CentOS 4.4 and 5.0 i386/x86_64 CD/DVD available.
by Maciej Żenczykowski 19 Apr '07

19 Apr '07

Reposting original message from CentOS mailing list for further discussion with developers and QA deep (per instructions). --- I've gone through the trouble (after some 10 rounds I finally have something I'm happy with) and generated jigdo/template files for CentOS 5.0 iso's (CD/DVD i386/x86_64) (and CentOS 4.4 while I was at it: CD/DVD/ServerCD SRPMS/i386/x86_64). (and I started on this before the thread about creating the DVD's from the CD's started ;-) ) They are available at: http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/ (I skipped the LiveCD since jigdo offers no size improvement here -- already for the ServerCD the template file is 125 MBs because of the different .img files inside the iso) These jigdo/template files should allow you to generate any of the listed cd/dvd isos from the publically available http://mirror.centos.org mirror site (which is DNS-aliased to something close to you). Jigdo will also allow using a local source of files (ie. an existing CD, etc...) You will need to install jigdo-file and jigdo-lite. It is available: - in package jigdo from dag's repository (rpmforge) for CentOS 4 (and others) - in package jigdo-file for debian/ubuntu (just apt-get it) - from the source website (both sources, and windows binaries, and statically linked linux binaries) http://atterer.net/jigdo/ Once installed usage is (...should be...) trivial: jigdo-lite --noask http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/%.jigdo which will generate the requested (replace the % with what you want, see the http://tcs.uj.edu.pl/~buildcentos/centos-jigdo/ listing) iso file in the directory in which you run it. [If you have a local source of files you can skip the --noask and provide it when asked] Next step: get this included on the centos mirrors ;-) [hint hint] Afterwards: it would be nice to drop the iso files from the mirrors in their entirety and generate them on-the-fly using the JTE extensions package. Should be significant space-savings. [requires perl cgi in the hosting webserver, but should be very safe since it's all read-only access] Even later: it would be awesome if we could generate the jigdo/template during mkisofs (requires using a patched mkisofs). This would skip the slightly painful jigdo generation step (painful - because I have to download a local mirror of both the files and the CD/DVD images, much less painful to do it directly on the centos source/build system/mirrors) Both later steps are 95% there (the JTE jigit website/extensions/mkisofs patches/etc) and mostly require putting together rpms for EL4/5. (I'm going to be trying to put together a mkisofs-jte rpm which doesn't override the normal mkisofs rpm, but instead provides two files - /usr/bin/mkisofs-jte and it's manpage) This should also allow more customized images (like the rolled up updates) without increasing mirror space usage. Jigdo (combined with hardlinking identical files, which I believe is already done) should enable drastic reductions in centos HDD footprint. Comments? Cheers, Maciej Zenczykowski _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 12

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 19 Apr '07

19 Apr '07

John Summerfield <debian(a)herakles.homelinux.org> wrote: >> G'day Les, good to see you again, virtually speaking! << 'morning, John - you're up early! >> Note that the file name need not fully reflect the package name; the package could be el5.centos.i386.rpm and the file .el5.lesbell.i386.rpm << As I understand it, the package name will generally be a substring of the file name, and I'd certainly favour consistency here. E.g. filename pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos.i386.rpm, once installed, will show up as pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos. The way I've done this is simply to set the Release string in the spec file to be "1.el5.centos", but obviously I could automate this by defining some stuff in .rpmmacros or in /etc/rpm or somewhere. Anyway, at this point, I'm able to rebuild RPM's for my own setup (as I used to do for RH9 long after RH had given up on it). I just figured I'd get on top of the process of releasing stuff back to the community. In any case, it'll have to take a back seat for a couple of weeks, as I have a literature review due in next week as part of my progress towards my Masters thesis (would you believe, I've gone back to school?!), Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

1 0

Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

When building RPM's for CentOS, should I include ".el5.centos" in the Release field? I recently built (you might remember) pdftk-1.12-1.i386.rpm and have made it available for testing and inclusion in the Centos repos. However, when trying to find RPM's, I find it helpful if the package filename includes the distro and distro version number. I can easily produce "pdftk-1.12-1.el5.centos.i386.rpm" and other related files, but is this kosher? Or is the ".el5.centos" designation reserved for official releases, post-QA? Just trying to do the right thing here. . . Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

3 2

4.4 -> 5.0 upgrade (considerations)
by Rodrigo Barbosa 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm working on a formula to enable a clean upgrade from 4.4 to 5.0. Unfortunately, not only we have a big glibc upgrade on our way, we also have some nasty package fragmentation. The best exemple is xorg-x11-libs, which was separated in several (10+, perhaps) packages. So far, I think the best plan is to create meta packages to solve this dependency hell. Lets call it meta-4.4to5.0-upgrade.noarch.rpm. This package should provide and requires the needed components. Unfortunatelly, this will probably change from system to system, which can become very nasty. In that case, we have two ways to procede: 1) A script that will create a package specific for that given system 2) Several meta packages I'm kind of leaning toward the second option, with a super meta package that will require them all (in case someone want to make things simples at the cost of installing extra packages). Comments ? Suggestions ? - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGJGaSpdyWzQ5b5ckRAhw2AJ0QBzzC6QfrW4Lj4FfpB+dO4Qx1CwCgroxT ZPrC/PFmX/71wicSAaywJWY= =v59U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 11

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)darkover.org> wrote: >> Just to make sure no confusion arrises here: I'm not a member of the CentOS team, so even tho I'm fairly certain my position regaring the .centos part is correct, don't take it as canon. << Don't worry, Rodrigo - if we kids are off-base, one of the grown-ups will come along and set us straight. ;) Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] Question re RPM Package Naming
by Les Bell 18 Apr '07

18 Apr '07

Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)darkover.org> wrote: >> > Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know who > to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any > case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or CentOS > el5? Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes no difference, does it ? << Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's an official package, that's an entirely different proposition. >> That is the cannonically correct way to do official packages. But if you are submiting something that will end up in EXTRAS, you don't need to worry about that, since it will most likely require other modifications. << Yes - that was the idea of submitting it via this list. In that case, I can just sit back and relax, since it's somebody else's problem. Thanks! Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909

2 2

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