devel

devel@lists.centos.org

1 participants
4619 discussions

Start a nNew thread

6.0 /etc/ntp.conf references rhel
by Patrick Bervoets 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

2 1

Updates between minor releases
by Marcus Moeller 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

Hi all. In general the release of CentOS 6 has been appreciated a lot in the German-speaking countries. But a lot of ppl complained about how updates are handled in transition phases between minor releases (e.g. 5.5 to 5.6). >From what I can see on the announce list there has be a lack of updates for about two month: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2011-February/thread.html http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2011-March/thread.html where some critical updates where pending. I remember that we once agreed that if a critical update has been released during transition phase, it should be backported. Maybe we have to completely re-think the process. I guess the main aim is to keep minor releases (the ones that are shipped on the media) in sync with upstream. They should not contain newer packages, then upstream to keep compatibility on release date. But on the other hand, already installed systems need to be patched. I am not completely sure how this scenario is handled atm but if not already done this way, i would suggest that the majorversion directory (e.g. 5/) should be fed with these missing updates so that they become nearly next-minor. Similar to what is planned for 6.0 -> 6.1 Besides that the minor release trees (e.g. 5.7/) should only contain packages that are part of the release, no post release updates, on release date. Greets Marcus

2 7

dev86 package found in x86_64 but not in i386
by Teck Choon Giam 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Hi, If I post this in the wrong list, please accept my apology and direct me to the right list so that I won't repeat this mistake again. Thanks in advance. When building my custom xen packages, one of the dependencies is dev86 which found in x86_64 CentOS-6.0 repo (i.e. http://mirror.centos.org/centos-6/6.0/os/x86_64/Packages/) but not in i386 CentOS-6.0 repo (i.e. http://mirror.centos.org/centos-6/6.0/os/i386/Packages/) Is this intended or missed for dev86 not in i386 CentOS-6.0 repo? Thanks. Kindest regards, Giam Teck Choon

1 0

package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64
by Ulrich Leodolter 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

hi, i know c6 it is not released, but centos-release packages was not upgraded when doing upgrade from 5.6 to 6.0 (using upgradeany option). [root@server Packages]# rpm -Uvh centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm warning: centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID c105b9de: NOKEY Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 (which is newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64) is already installed i assume this was not tested because this upgrade method is not supported by upstream vendor. br ul -- Ulrich Leodolter <ulrich.leodolter(a)obvsg.at>

8 12

minimal install & avahi
by Ferry Huberts 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Hi I just did a minimal install and then installed avahi-daemon and avahi-dnsconfd. however, both avahi-* fail to start as services. it seems that they try to use dbus, which is not installed in a minimal install. is there something wrong with avahi dependencies or am i missing something? also, at least one serivce is complaining about nss-mdns, which is not available as a package -- Ferry Huberts

2 1

Xen and timekeeping
by Dmitry E. Mikhailov 11 Jul '11

11 Jul '11

Hi to everyone, First of all, I'm not sure I'm posting to a correct list, but please let me borrow a minute of your precious time before directing me to the correct place. I have the problem with Xen domU's and timekeeping in dom0. Time in dom0 was incorrect by 5 hours due to wrong timezone assumed. Fixed it by ntpdate ntp.nist.gov. The time on a dom0 was changed. I didn't append xen.independent_wallclock=1 to sysctl.conf thus the time in all domU's was also changed. But THEY DIDN'T "KNOW" THAT! The 'date' output in domU shows time unchanged, as before, incorrect by 5 hours. But any current_time-dependent operations don't behave correctly. Quagga's OSPFd daemon doesn't add routes. 'service dhcpd stop' hangs forever while correctly stopping the daemon. AFAIK, it hangs on 'killproc' [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# grep killproc dhcpd -A 2 -B 2 echo -n $"Shutting down $prog: " killproc $prog RETVAL=$? [ $RETVAL = 0 ] && rm -f $lockfile From http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/15380.html killproc: killproc kills a process which is given by a full path to the executable. ...cut... (by default a SIGTERM is sent, then a SIGKILL if the process does not die within 5 seconds). So a 5 seconds interval becomes 5 hours and 5 seconds - something I'm not willing to wait for. The problem was worked around when I did a 'date 07111158' on a dom0 and all domU's semi-simultaneously. Is this behaviour normal or should I file a bug? Best regards, Dmitry Mikhailov dom0: Hardware: Intel 5000P chipset, 2 CPUs, total 8 cores [root@xensrv ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.6 (Final) [root@xensrv ~]# uname -a Linux xensrv 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 16:41:45 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@xensrv ~]# rpm -q ntp ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.1 [root@xensrv ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo - 8 times the following processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 1998.000 cache size : 6144 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 1 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni vmx est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 lahf_lm bogomips : 6237.52 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: domU#0 [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.5 (Final) [root@gbuh-ufa init.d]# uname -a Linux gbuh-ufa 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 17:49:40 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux domU#1 [root@buhserv ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5.6 (Final) [root@buhserv ~]# uname -a Linux buhserv 2.6.18-238.el5xen #1 SMP Thu Jan 13 16:41:45 EST 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

2 1

[Fwd: Delivery Status Notification(Failure)]
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

I received about 20 "Delivery Status Notification(Failure)" from address: juan.cardoza at - telcel-blackberry-net stating he has not received mails I posted to this mailing list. Can someone remove or disable him from this list since he's obviously not receiving any mail. Ljubomir -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Delivery Status Notification(Failure) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:00:32 GMT From: postmaster(a)telcel.blackberry.net To: office(a)plnet.rs Your message: To: juan.cardoza(a)telcel.blackberry.net Subject: Re: [CentOS] inconsistent DNS results - ping vs dig vs nslookup Sent Date: Wed Jun 22 17:44:09 2011 +0000 has not been delivered to the recipient's BlackBerry Handheld.

2 2

Public mirrors leaking ISO files
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

One of the members on CentOS Facebook page says that he was able to download ISO file from a public official mirror. Maybe someone could check this claim and plug the leak? Ljubomir

5 7

Opening of the mirrors?
by Ljubomir Ljubojevic 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

Hi. Can someone confirm that ISO's are in their final form and ready for download / torrent seeding? I saw announcement on @Centos tweeter account and I see previously locked mirror close to me is know open, but I do not see any md5sum or sha1sum files. Ljubomir

6 8

Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS-devel Digest, Vol 77, Issue 6
by Mark E. Wilt 10 Jul '11

10 Jul '11

On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 12:00 -0400, centos-devel-request(a)centos.org wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:43:56 +0200 > From: Ljubomir Ljubojevic <office(a)plnet.rs> > Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Public mirrors leaking ISO files > To: "The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel(a)centos.org> > Message-ID: <4E1814CC.9020507(a)plnet.rs> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Shawn Thompson wrote: > > "leaks" > Yes, as in "drips through barriers" until whole dam is broken. Remember > story about Dutch kid that saved the dam by plugging his finger in dam's > little hole? If you are doing something, do it right or do not do it at all. > > > > This is just the silliest thing I have ever heard. This happens all > > the time, even with Windows. I see no cause for alarm, especially > > since this is FOSS. What's the problem? > > I don't care you don't care. I know dev's value their invested time and You've > do not need more headaches. > > Because it is not 100% complete. If someone (read hundreds possibly) > starts using ISO with a bug, then they could start complaining about > something wrong, and dev's and us willing to help could spend may hours > not knowing why is that persons PC behave like that. Not to mention > possible public name calls for no reason than not caring. > > Ljubomir > > > ------------------------------ Let's see if I understand this - You've got "hundreds possibly" of people who have been anxiously awaiting this release for months...you've got a very real dearth of information coming out of "official" channels regarding the status of the release (with the exception of http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/, which announced that the sync to external mirrors started a couple of days ago, and that the "bit flip" should occur at any time), and you're chastising people for showing an overwhelming interest in the product. If you're so concerned about the potential problems with people "jumping the gun", then COMMUNICATE THE STATUS!! Don't leave people in the dark then act chagrined when people take it upon themselves to seek out what they've been waiting for. I don't care that you don't care that he doesn't care that there are leaks. I do care that you don't care to share what you know with others so that they might behave in a rational manner toward this much anticipated release.

6 8

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