devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4653 discussions

atomic host upstream: starting up the nightly builds
by Karanbir Singh 02 Oct '15

02 Oct '15

hi, we have a good manifest and build script in place now, having validated it a few times through regular release. should we get the nightly job running for the upstream versions as well ? for anyone who might want to poke it ? the job can run from ci either on a rpm trigger or just nightly at a specific time. regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

[Storage SIG] Adding new package glusterfs-coreutils to the CBS
by Niels de Vos 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Hi Lala, Today I've prepared the glusterfs-coreutils package for the Storage SIG. Everything works fine, but there is one thing I am unable to get done. Maybe I am missing certain permissions? The new glusterfs-coreutils package would need to be added to the CBS. This fails for me: $ koji -p centos \ add-pkg --owner storage \ storage6-gluster-common-candidate glusterfs-coreutils SSLError: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590) Doing scratch-builds works fine, so I doubt that the issue really is the SSL-certificate. Could you let me know if I am doing something wrong, or if it is expected that I can not add new packages? Thanks, Niels

4 7

CentOS SCLo SIG sync-up meeting on #centos-devel (2015-09-30)
by Honza Horak 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

It seems I'll beat the record in short notice, but.. SCLo SIG meeting will be at 15:00 UTC (11:00 EST, 17:00 Brno, 11:00 Boston, 0:00+1d Tokyo, 1:00+1d Brisbane) in #centos-devel on Freenode. = Topics = * are we ready to remove the temp pkgs from CBS? * dist-git repos creation -- anything new? * docker images on the hub based on SCLo collections -- check status Honza

2 1

[RFC] ConfigMgmt SIG
by Julien Pivotto 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Hi all, This is a request for comment about a new SIG for the CentOS project. It is also a call for a Centos Board mentor to jump in. The goal of this proposed SIG is to provide vendor-independent, nicely written packages for automation tools. Targeted automation tools include Puppet, Chef, Ansible... Some of those tools come in a so-called all-in-one package, with everything built-in in some vendor-defined dependencies. I do think that an alternative for those packages should be possible. It is good for the diversity of our ecosystems and would help anyone who wants to fine control dependencies on those packages or patch one particular dependencies to do so. It would also do its best to re-use system dependencies as much as possible (e.g openssl). That SIG will probably be a source of interests for other SIG that could use this work to deploy their work based on community packages. It could optionally depend on some Softwares Collections if needed. My personal interest is to target Puppet 4 on ContOS 7, and that would be the first objective, but this SIG is open to any Open-Source Configuration Management tool. About me: I am a sysadmin using CentOS daily. I operate on several infrastructures of different scales mixing several automation/orchestration tools. I come from Belgium and I have been involved as a speaker at previous CentOS DOJO's in Brussels and Paris. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Open-Source Consultant V_/_ Inuits - https://www.inuits.eu

3 4

CATPR - Community Approved Third Party Repos
by Carl George 01 Oct '15

01 Oct '15

Howdy, There are several "release" packages in the Extras repository for SIGs and third party repositories. centos-release-virt-common centos-release-openstack epel-release Currently there are no guidelines for other third party repositories to be included, so I wrote this document. https://wiki.centos.org/CarlGeorge/CATPR What is this document missing? Are there any additional rules that need to be added for a third party repository to be considered? Also, if these guidelines are accepted, what does the approval process look like? Obviously repositories would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but who has the final say on whether a repository is approved or not? Carl George IUS CoreDev Team

6 10

Centos 7, 32 bits edition
by john tatt 29 Sep '15

29 Sep '15

Hi everybody I heard that since January, a 32 bits version was about to come. Is there some news ? It would be fine thanks

3 2

Community Authentication Working Group Meeting: 29-Sep-2015 1300UTC
by Brian Stinson 29 Sep '15

29 Sep '15

Hi Folks, As some of you know, CentOS is working on deploying FAS2 for central authentication in the Community Build System. The Fedora Infrastructure team is working on deploying FAS3 for their needs. Going forward, we will need a place for us and other projects to work on features of our authentication systems. One software option is to explore some of the things FreeIPA brings to the table. The IPA devs have approached both projects with the beginnings of a community portal that will handle some of the self-service components (account requests, password resets, etc.) and we thought it would be good to start on some conversations in this space. We'll have our first meeting on Tuesday September 29th at 1300UTC in #centos-devel on Freenode with the following agenda: - Scope for the Community Auth Working Group - Proposed GOAL: Replacing FAS with IPA + custom bits - Proposed GOAL: Work on a general Auth solution for other communities - Resources we need to move forward - Coordinating with the IPA development team - Schedule/Venue/Format for regular-ish meetings - Not necessarily frequent, but regular - OPTIONAL: Scope for a possible Auth SIG Patrick Uiterwijk (Fedora Infrastructure Team) and I will help coordinate this group. As always, we'll keep meetbot minutes for anyone who can't make it. Cheers! Brian

2 1

CBS/Infra Meeting 28-Sep-2015 1400UTC
by Brian Stinson 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

Hi All, It's time for another meeting to talk about the Community Build System[0]. We will meet in #centos-devel on irc.freenode.net Proposed Agenda: - Status Updates: - General - Central Auth - Central Auth release blockers - EPEL/SIG Packaging Discussion Cheers! --Brian [0]: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/CommunityBuildSystem

2 1

Cloud SIG meetup, OpenStack Summit Tokyo
by Rich Bowen 23 Sep '15

23 Sep '15

Because we were unable to get one of the official BoF rooms at OpenStack Summit, in Tokyo, the Ceph Community Meetup has graciously offered us the use of their room during the lunch our on Wednesday. That's 12:45 - 14:00, Wednesday, October 28th, in the Sakura Tower. Exact room name/number to come very soon. -- Rich Bowen - rbowen(a)redhat.com OpenStack Community Liaison http://rdoproject.org/

1 0

[Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS
by Haïkel 23 Sep '15

23 Sep '15

Hi, Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that 1. Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella 2. That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages (or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies. 3. EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress, *may* turn the former irrelevant 4. Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL releases and/or orphaned We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands. So I suggest that we consider the following: * EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git * EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to consume it. * EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL repositories * Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage. * Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages. I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards. Would that work for you? Regards, H.

8 11

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