devel

devel@lists.centos.org

11 participants
4618 discussions

[PATCH] Added switch to filter output based on branch
by Pat Riehecky 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

From: Pat Riehecky <riehecky(a)fnal.gov> I also added in Bonnie's patch from http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010841.html Pat Riehecky (1): Added branch filtering lines centos.git.repolist.py | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

2 2

upgrade path from CentOS-6 to 7
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

hi the upgrade path from centos6 to 7 requires some additional content to be released into the centos-6 repos, and then work with specific tools. The important thing here is that sucess of an upgrade will depend on what is installed, how well we can setup docs around the process and how we communicate what is and isnt going to work. I've asked Johnny to push the 2 rpms needed ( into a testing repo for centos6 ) and once its there, we should all try and see if we can scope things up and document the process. As we get closer to finalising the tree's, this is going to become an important piece of the overall stack to test out. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

1 0

testing SecureBoot
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi, As a part of what we are doing in the project - and something we want to extend to all content built + signed + delivered via the project resources - I've been working on secureboot facilities and getting the infra around it online. After a bit of hop, step and jump ( and lots of help from Peter Jones at Red Hat ), I've got a baseline test run complete today. This compose is based on a newer-than-GA kernel, so dont stress too far about that, the release media will contain the GA kernel. You can find the tree here : http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/os/x86_64-secureboot/ The tree itself is based on the last good tree we pushed on the 18th June. Please test secureboot widely, its something new, its something we are doing differently than most of the other distro's out there at the moment ( but they will mostly all be doing it like this soon ). This new process is using an EV Code Signing key, validated by Microsoft rather than the first-gen system ( where people would setup their own CA root and request validation ). Feedback here and/or at bugs.centos.org, thanks, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

5 10

CentOS-7 on PowerPC
by Karanbir Singh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi, I'd like to try and see if we can get a secondary arch sort of effort underway to build and deliver a PowerPC ( power7 ? ) distro based on the CentOS-7. Power hardware is hard to come by, and we're going to mostly bootstrap from the powerpc community resources hosted at OSUOSL - but we do have enough resources to get the buildsystem up and keep it running for the ppc64 and ppc tree's. To complement this, we also have a power7 machine for the time being, on loan from a sponsor. But its future is uncertain, we might only have it for another 6 months. The resouces at OSL should, however, persist. Also, as most people on this list will realise - there is quite a lot of momentum inside the project, so the existing contributors dont have enough time to contribute towards another arch as well, so the effort to run this will need to come from the community. So the purpose of my email is two fold, (1) is there enough community interest to undertake this effort ? and (2) are there enough community folks willing to put in the time to make it happen. Ideally some of you lot will have local hardware to test and qa the builds as well. Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

4 11

CentOS 7 Release Schedule
by Shafiee Roozbeh 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Hi community is there any release schedule for CentOS 7 ? not exact schedule I mean... I follow all topics in development mailing list and I know that there is no release schedule announcement by Karanbir and the other guys. I mean approximate schedule... I asked this question because the time interval between RHEL 6.0 and CenOS 6.0 was more than 240 days. (according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS ) . For CentOS 7 we should await this much ? Thanks -- Roozbeh Shafiee Linux/BSD System Administrator and Python Developer RoozbehShafiee.Com

4 4

Cloud and VM Images
by Karanbir Singh 22 Jun '14

22 Jun '14

hi, I have just pushed a public build for a qcow2 image, this should be suiteable for any HVM environment. Please test as widely as possible. http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/cloud/ I also spoke with Rich Jones earlier in the day today and we will try and get virt-builder images registered, with signs etc ready to go in sync with 7GA, making it much easier for people to get and consume these images on standalone virtualised environs. Send reports here, or to bugs.centos.org, but note: there is no cloud-init included as yet. I spoke with Sam Kottler earlier as well today and he's going to work on pushing that through soon. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

4 7

[OT, partly]epel question
by Fred Smith 21 Jun '14

21 Jun '14

I've installed MATE desktop (and related packages) from epel on my C7 VM, just to see how it works on C7. The answer I've got is "not too well", but I fear I may have done something wrong. Before I go any further, is it not toally unreasonable to ask this here? or should I be banished to redhat bugzilla? I've got it to the point where when I log in I get top and bottom panels, and desktop wallpaper. But nothing is drawn in front of the wallpaper, and right-click context menu on the desktop doesn't do anything. Everything that I can access thru a panel icon, a panel menu, or a terminal seems to be working. I did log on epel IRC and talked with "wolfy" about it, but he didn't have any firm answers (several good suggestions, though). -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ------------------------------- Romans 5:8 (niv) ------------------------------

3 5

Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering
by Philip Mather 21 Jun '14

21 Jun '14

> > So in summary : I think we should continue to use CentOS-7/Final as the > main distro that everyone runs, and use the 7.YYMM to indicate the isos > set, with metadata inside the installed machine still reporting whatever > rhel point release it originated or maps to. Everything that has > happened in the past, stays intact - except the ISOS release is > announced as '7 1406 - rebuilt from RHEL 7.0 sources'. > Fairly lost now, doesn't take much I'll grant but there we go. In all the organisations I've ever worked at we've kept our own mirrors of each X.Y directory/step and then at some places kept snapshots of those per month by postfixing them in spacewalk with YYYYMM when cloning channels via cron job. Just referring to CentOS 5, 6 or 7 without the .Y is so vague as to be meaningless in any technical or patching discussion. -- Regards, Phil

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering
by Philip Mather 21 Jun '14

21 Jun '14

Wading in late as usual. :^) Message: 28 > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:35:08 +0100 > From: Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org> > Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering > ... > So, personally - I think the community feedback was great, how badly we > communcated the idea was apareny and clear for everyone to see. And I > personally feel that a large chunk of the response was down to fear of > change in areas that we had never even imaged were going to change. I'm also assuming that my last email to this thread cleared all the > technical issues that people had brought up, if there are still some > outstanding now is a great time for people to raise those. > Not really, I think the idea was communicated fine but the motivations and the absolute technical requirements for deviating from upstream's format at the Core level rather than at the SIG level were never nailed down? It's because of the cloud images and the fact that a CVE fix isn't recorded into an release string? " > 2) A clear example of what the datestamp tries to workaround is yesterdays > docker updates ( and the AMI and GCE images etc ) that were done to CVE fix > openssl content. These are not marked as a point at all, just a centos-6-x86_64- > 20140609 ( and in most cases, the link that people hit is for centos-6-x86_64, > which points at the latest images ); this is becoming more of an issue as the > cloud side of things grows, even within CentOS we've seen a massive increase in > uptake on that side and I am sure everyone sees that. " ...surely cloud images should be a product of the Cloud SIG and as to how those final releases or images (in their specific scenario) are named is entirely up to them? A SIG could eschew numbering all together in it's final product and, as was suggested earlier, perhaps even go for a release entitled CentOS: Constipated Chihuahua? People missing CVEs, other important updates or not bothering to update at all and then expecting support/help is just par for the course. No project such as a CentOS is out to educate people at such a fundamental level, you just have to politely point them in the right direction and hope they find the right page. We've all been there, seen that and "Stupid is as Stupid does" at the end of the day. I seem to be saying this a lot, but getting better at what we do should > never really be optional - and I definitely feel that the numbering > change allows us to do just that. > How can we make it even more aparent as to what we are trying to do ? > Given the code changes are apparently trivial to less than trivial, this is being done simply to obviate a direct link between RHEL 7.x and CentOS 7.x by calling it CentOS 7.YYMM, hence allowing CentOS to do other things without the baggage of being too closely coupled and the expectations that would bring from some users? > I will aim to deliver two sets of tree's today to buildlogs.centos.org, > one that targets a 7.0 release tag and another one that does 7.1406, > lets see if we can find, in using the 7.1406 metrics on what breaks and > how. We can then work backwards to fix the issues, and move the > conversation forward. > Might be able to do some testing with that next week. -- Regards, Phil

1 0

kpatch process
by Karanbir Singh 21 Jun '14

21 Jun '14

hi since we now have a GA kernel and a zero day update kernel, does someone want to have a go at creating the scripts / automation needed to deliver kpatch content ? - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

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