Hi,
As SIG's come up and move forward - we are going to need to have a
better established, documented and process driven security response
team. While we can, in a pinch, reach into and request some resources
from the RedHat SRT, they are in no way bound to help or even be
involved in the overall CentOS Ecosystem - and we should really setup
our own group to handle these requests.
In the past conversations we had thought of setting up a group of maybe
3 to 5 people, who can triage and communicate with the respective groups
of people responsible for the code or infra in question.
This would not only include centos resources, but also be the contact
point for upstream security notices from projects associated with us. In
this case, they would be the people managing security(a)centos.org - with
that email address being the primary contact for projects in the SIG's
upstream as well.
We would also then setup a private security mailing list.
thoughts ? comments ? feedback ?
--
Karanbir Singh, Project Lead, The CentOS Project
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.centos.org/ | twitter.com/CentOS
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Hey all,
Since things have been on the back burner a bit since the Inktank
acquisition I wanted to refresh what's going on in the world of the
Storage SIG.
KB, Lala, and I met yesterday to discuss current status and as it
turns out things are actually still moving along. Ultimately we have
3 major goals for the near-term:
1) Collect srpms for Ceph/Gluster to populate CentOS repo (complete)
2) Ensure Ceph/Gluster are installable from a single repo
3) Ensure Storage distro work w/ virt
Ideally we would like to expand the storage considerations beyond
Ceph/Gluster, so if anyone has storage tech that they would like to
heap on to the pile we definitely want to make sure we're enabling as
many things as possible. Perhaps the xtreemFS or mooseFS guys would
care to participate? At the very least it would be good to get a
non-red-hat member into the storage mix now.
If anyone has questions or concerns please let me know. Once we have
a workable setup I'll push that out again for some actual consumption.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Patrick McGarry
Director, Community || Inktank
http://ceph.com || http://inktank.com
@scuttlemonkey || @ceph || @inktank
Well, we havent really done this seven times before, but given its
targetting CentOS Seven it feels apt to mark it ed.7
Over the next couple of days, we are going to have the git repos
populated with the rhel7beta and then rhel7rc content and we need to
boostrap the larger branding hunt.
Comments, ideas and process recommendations on how we might run this are
now welcome. Also, people interested in helping run the effort please
make yourself known now!
Regards,
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
In Fedora and EPEL we have the qpid-cpp package (which I spoke about in
an email last week) for all supported version of Fedora and for EL7
(can't do EL5/6 for the reasons mentioned in that previous email).
This week we discussed the idea of providing CentOS specific packages,
starting with CentOS 7. In RHEL we have product packages, this would be
something separate from what we would be doing as a product.
What would be the process for doing something like this?
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Hi,
given that we have our own git infra in place now, I propose moving the
upstream t_functional setup ( and other repos we have there ) from
gitorious.org to git.centos.org
will that work for everyone ? Also, some of the docs on the wiki and in
the git repo itself will need updating.
- KB
--
Karanbir Singh, Project Lead, The CentOS Project
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.centos.org/ | twitter.com/CentOS
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Hi all,
if you are interested in participating in the Virtualization SIG, please
join http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt and post via
centos-virt(a)centos.org (but note that you need to be subscribed to the
list, otherwise your post will be discarded)
We have had a number of meetings so far : SIG related meeting minutes,
actions, IRC logs, etc. can be found at
http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization
Best Regards
Lars
Is it possible to run a Centos 6.5's kernel on a Centos 5.10 installation?
I have compiled a new kernel from kernel-2.6.32-431.17.1.el6.src.rpm. The
kernel does not even boot on my Centos 5.10 box. Vanilla kernels from
kernel.org work well. Is this about Red Hat kernel patches?
Cheers,
Mark
To consolidate the docker effort moving around the -devel list [1][2],
I've been talking with the docker folks about taking over the 'official'
CentOS images they have in place, and transferring the responsibility to
the cloud sig. Currently Chris StPierre and Adam Miller have been
helping to do the work and get us in contact with the right people.
As it stands right now, the docker folks use stackbrew[3] to generate
their images, jam the resulting image tarball into git, and submit a
pull request when updates are required. As long as the image can be
imported into docker, they don't seem to have a problem with the way
we're currently[4] doing things
The recent openssl bug has gotten them a bit more hurried to transition
the responsibility back to us.
Immediate requirements:
- An updated docker image, built from the most recent updates so that
the openssl fix is in place.
Short term requirements:
- A brief description of the centos image, with url for more information
- Wiki page documenting the basics of the docker image, how it's
created, and how to use it.
Long term requirements:
- Update plan for for keeping the docker image updated, along with
'emergency roll-out plan' for critical updates.
- established policy for docker and other cloud images.
Thoughts?
[1] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010070.html
[2] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010090.html
[3] https://github.com/dotcloud/stackbrew
[4] https://github.com/CentOS/sig-cloud-instance-build/tree/master/docker
--
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
Here's the back story:
Base RHEL 6 has Qpid 0.14, which is a very old release. Our team wants
to make a more recent version, 0.26, available for projects such as Open
Stack. They are adopting CentOS as a platform and would like to use
0.26, which includes AMQP 1.0 support.
We can't package 0.26 for EPEL6 due to 0.14 being in the base.
So it was suggested to me in IRC to come here and ask for guidance. We
would like to make our newer packages available for CentOS 6. What's the
right path to follow?
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/