devel

devel@lists.centos.org

1 participants
4619 discussions

Re: [CentOS-devel] Website Version 2, next steps
by Karanbir Singh 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

On 02/22/2011 09:03 AM, Didi wrote: >> I agree with this. the level of complexity introduced by trying to >> wrangle an existing solution into working for the various properties / >> resources we have might be a lot higher than just doing something simple >> from scratch. > > I started looking at the solutions. The two mentioned have a lot of > features and we have a relatively simple problem. Just to remove any ambiguity : are you saying that the mentioned solutions would work for our given definition of the 'problem'; or that they are too cumbersome and perhaps an overkill for our simple requirements. - KB

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] Watch One, Do One, Teach One (the simple teaching method used in medical schools)
by Antaryami Khuda 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

> While it is understood that it is not the responsibility of the CentOS > Team to teach the community, nevertheless, it would be helpful if the > CentOS Team (or others in the know) could list a handful of packages > that are among the 600 Johnny reports as requiring attention in C6, > preferably some that won't even compile, others that require > comparison with the upstream binaries to note the problem. Dearest Larry, I AM SO FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR ENDLESS DRIVEL PASSING THROUGH MY INBOX, I may give up on this distro based on you and you ALONE. PS: Shouldn't you be busy running your business rather than running your fingers on a mailing list? PS #2: Looking at your business website, it appears your "store" is low on product. Perhaps you should concentrate on things that matter? Graciously: Ant.

3 2

Watch One, Do One, Teach One (the simple teaching method used in medical schools)
by Larry Vaden 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

While it is understood that it is not the responsibility of the CentOS Team to teach the community, nevertheless, it would be helpful if the CentOS Team (or others in the know) could list a handful of packages that are among the 600 Johnny reports as requiring attention in C6, preferably some that won't even compile, others that require comparison with the upstream binaries to note the problem. N.B.: . for C 3, 4 and 5, to date, we've watched nearly 4,000 (albeit it was hard to see anything other than the outcome, which was GREAT) . many of us are ready and would like to do one, so please tell us which packages in the corpus will result in a failure in a stock/vanilla build environment. . perhaps somewhere between C6 and C7 some will pass muster. THANKS for your consideration of the use of this widely used method of teaching MDs, DVMs, DDSs, et al. kind regards/ldv/vaden(a)texoma.net

1 0

php-5.2.x needs adopting
by Karanbir Singh 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

hi guys, We've had a php-5.2 in c5-testing which was based on the rhwas sources from upstream. Quite a few people have that package in production at various places however, this looks mostly unsupported upstream now. Would someone like to adopt the 5.2 packages, bring them upto 5.2.17 and maintain it going forward for c5 ? Regards, - KB

10 19

a little levity and a URL for a PhD thesis about Trusting Trust
by Larry Vaden 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

While learning from rpm and yum guru Jeff Johnson offlist, the thought occurred that some might enjoy reading <http://www.dwheeler.com/fourfours/> and Dr. Wheeler's thesis entitled "Fully Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse Double-Compiling" at <http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/dissertation/html/wheeler-trusting-t…>. Enjoy!

2 1

Can I do computation with giant integer in kernel?
by YANG 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

I need compute some **polynomials using giant integer with power of numbers perhaps. I found GMP library can do this in user mode. How about in kernel? Is there any existing codes? Or, I should keep the computation in user mode and use netlink to let kernel pass the task to application for computing and wait for result asynchronously. But I worry about efficience by using this method. Does it cause mode switch frequently, even on multi-core cpu chip?

2 1

Ja oder nein: is cygwin-setup process a viable alternative to present day builds?
by Larry Vaden 19 Feb '11

19 Feb '11

This question keys off IIRC Johnny's remarks earlier in the day about how much work it is to build a release. This question is addressed to those build gurus on this list who have forgotten more about the build process than this poster will ever know and further have first hand knowledge|experience with cygwin-setup. Because 4 of our servers are Windows boxen running IIS (to enable small business folks to build web sites with Front Page), considerable fondness for the cygwin build process has developed to the extent that Windows commands via CLI and GUI are hardly ever done. At the end of the day, other than RPM package management, what are the substantial differences that would preclude a cygwin-setup-like build process from being used to build and maintain the release and would it be a lot faster and less labor intensive? kind regards/ldv/vaden(a)texoma.net

5 8

Re: [CentOS-devel] [CentOS] Any update on 5.6 / 6?
by Benjamin Donnachie 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

On 16 February 2011 14:58, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org> wrote: > So what happened in the early days of when EL6 came out - we asked > people to help, there were many threads on how people could get involved > ( on the centos-devel list, which is - I am sure you will agree, the > appropriate place ). Nothing happened, not one person beyond the > usual-people actually did anything. Unfortunately, I wasn't a member of this list then so missed the call for help. I would certainly like to help with CentOS and previously looked after a number of packages for cAos. I appreciate that now isn't a good time as you are all very busy and I'm currently moving house so I won't be much immediate help. Take care, Ben

1 0

php53 / bind97
by Karanbir Singh 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

hi, php53 and bind97 from the 5.6/ tree are available in the c5-testing repo, so test away. Consider the pkgs as mostly production ready, but features that rely on other new pkgs or updates in 5.6 may not work. If you run into one, let us know either on the list here, or in #centos-devel on irc.freenode.net - KB

4 9

Re: [CentOS-devel] php53-pear.spec
by James Findley 01 Feb '11

01 Feb '11

It's a legacy from the original fedora rpm dating back many versions, back to when php was still using cvs. It's good practice to have a comment explaining where the file comes from, but I will update that line to the new svn one. I've attached the fixed spec. ----- Original Message ----- From: James Hogarth Sent: 02/01/11 01:32 PM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] php53-pear.spec On 1 February 2011 13:24, James Findley <sixy(a)gmx.com> wrote: > > Ok, this time I actually did attach the spec.... > Hmm a little more complicated ;) The wget commented out doesn't actually hit anything (gets a 404) is this really needed? Looks good at first glace - not set up a build env yet to check how it builds - but based on spec I'm happy to keep an eye on upstream and test/build as co-maintainer as per our IRC chat. James _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

2 1

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