devel

devel@lists.centos.org

8 participants
4686 discussions

Community Build Service (cbs): deprecating ppc64/armhfp builders
by Fabian Arrotin 27 Apr '21

27 Apr '21

Background story : for some SIGs building for/against 8-stream (and hopefully soon for/against 9-stream), we'd like to upgrade cbs.centos.org to koji 1.23 and all components on CentOS 8-stream. The current setup is based on koji 1.19 on top of CentOS 7 nodes. While we have tested that it works fine for all builds and signing with 8-straem (tracking ticket https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/233) we have though a "small" issue that we'd like to announce first here : 8-stream doesn't exist for the following architectures : ppc64 (Big Endian, while ppc64le - Little Endian - exists) and armhfp. I had a quick survey on what is being built/maintained (and so pushed out to mirror CDN) and ppc64/armhfp aren't even used. So it seems that removing ppc64/armhfp support from CBS is the way to go and it wouldn't hurt any SIG. The only SIG that actually builds and ships packages to external mirror is the Infra SIG (so "us"), but we're building pkgs just because we had to maintain that arch ourselves, meaning that if we remove it from cbs, we don't have to maintain infra for ppc64 anymore (for SIG, as pkgs from CentOS 7 distro itself will continue to be built and shipped, but they aren't built on cbs anyway) Opinions ? thoughts ? Depending on feedback (or lack of in this case), I'll announce the maintenance window about cbs.centos.org migration to 8-stream in the next days (normally planned for next week but waiting for some feedback) Kind Regards, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab

2 1

Board of Directors: Nominations sought
by Rich Bowen 26 Apr '21

26 Apr '21

** Please do read the message before responding with your nominations. We have a process, and if you don’t follow the process, it makes everything harder for everyone. ** ** The process is to email centos-board-private(a)centos.org. Read on for more details. ** At the April Board of Directors meeting, we discussed the annual process of re-appointing the Board of Directors, as defined in our Governance documents. At that time, two directors indicated that they wished to step down, to focus on other things in their life and open the seats to new contributors. (Historical note: The last time a director resigned, the Board simply appointed replacements with no public process. We believe that greater transparency is needed in this new chapter of our existence as a project, and are committed to making that happen.) With two resignations, we have 8 Board seats filled. Our governance definition as it currently stands indicates 8 to 11 seats[1], so we’re still covered. However, we have decided to continue to seat 10 directors as part of the new Board. To this end, we come to you, the CentOS Community, for nominations for who should fill those seats. We ask that you send nominations to centos-board-private(a)centos.org and NOT to this list. There are several reasons for this: 1) Our governance indicates that the Board selects the next Board. We do not have any defined notion of project “membership” or a voting class of any kind, other than the Board itself. We do not wish to give any false impression that a public vote will be held on this list. 2) We do not wish for this to devolve into a bikeshed over proposed names. 3) We do not wish for individuals named to assume that they have any particular advantage over other nominees, nor do we wish for anyone to be shamed, embarrassed, or disappointed, if they are named and then not seated on the Board. The Board will collect those nominations, consider them at an upcoming meeting, and select the next Board at that time. We ask, if you wish to nominate someone, to consider the list of director requirements/recommendations listed at https://www.centos.org/about/governance/director-requirements/ Thank you for your participation in this important moment in our project’s history. Rich, for the CentOS Board of Directors [1] https://www.centos.org/about/governance/

2 2

Mock configs for CentOS SIGs
by Davide Cavalca 26 Apr '21

26 Apr '21

Hello! With the help of Neal, I've put together a mock-centos-sig-configs project to hold mock configs for CentOS SIGs: https://pagure.io/centos-sig-hyperscale/mock-centos-sig-configs This should make it easier to build packages against a given SIG for testing and development using mock. The project currently contains configs for the Hyperscale SIG, but other SIGs are obviously welcome -- just file an issue or (even better) send a PR on Pagure. mock-centos-sig-configs is already packaged in Fedora, and should become available in EPEL in a week or so: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mock-centos-sig-configs Cheers Davide

1 0

[NFV SIG] NFV SIG meeting minutes - 2020-04-21
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 21 Apr '21

21 Apr '21

============================================= #centos-meeting: NFV SIG meeting - 2020-04-21 ============================================= Meeting started by amoralej at 15:09:06 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://www.centos.org/minutes/2021/April/centos-meeting.2021-04-21-15.09… . Meeting summary --------------- * CentOS Stream 8 (amoralej, 15:09:29) * oVirt on CentOS Stream uses the NVF stream repo now: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/c/ovirt-release/+/114200 (dholler, 15:09:53) * now centos-release-nfv-openvswitch points to CentOS Stream 8 repo when installed in CentOS Stream 8 servers (amoralej, 15:10:58) * LINK: https://git.centos.org/rpms/centos-release-nfv/c/d0c51a3918b6c22d393b4f9636… (amoralej, 15:11:28) * LINK: https://blog.oddbit.com/post/2021-04-17-vm-ovs-vxlan/ (amoralej, 15:14:15) Meeting ended at 15:34:49 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * amoralej (38) * dholler (18) * centbot (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Code of Conduct
by Rich Bowen 19 Apr '21

19 Apr '21

You may have seen, a few days ago, that the Fedora project announced[1] a new Code of Conduct for their community. What you may not have known is that the CentOS project was involved in the crafting of that Code, so that we could also use it here. Yeah, I know, this is something we should have done a long time ago. But, you know what they say about the best time to plant a tree. (The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today.) As we continue to work to make all aspects of the CentOS Project more open and transparent, it is important that we create an open, welcoming community where all people, from all backgrounds, feel safe in their participation. This allows for a broader contributor pool, with more ideas and more community ownership of the resulting outcomes. And it's just the right thing to do. It is our intent to take the text of the Fedora CoC, and replace 'Fedora' with 'CentOS' everywhere, and propose it here. There will, of course, be other small changes to the text (Board vs Council, and so on) but not to the details of the Code itself, and how we intend to address reports. We're holding off on those edits so that our version doesn't drift from theirs, during their 2 week comment period. (Ends April 26th.) The document is derived from the Contributor Covenant, along with work that has been ongoing in the Fedora project for some time. Note also that the Contributor Covenant is also the source material for the CoC used by the Linux kernel project.[2] To that end, we encourage you to engage in the discussion around the Fedora CoC, because any changes made there will influence what we end up with here. And we also encourage discussion on centos-devel[3], for anything that you feel is specific to our community. --Rich, on behalf of the CentOS Board of Directors [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/policy-proposal-new-code-of-conduct/ [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?… [3] https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

1 0

How do I request a new package repo in CentOS 8/9 Stream?
by Connor Kuehl 19 Apr '21

19 Apr '21

Hello, I recently packaged a utility in Fedora 34[1] that enterprise cloud users might find helpful so I'd like to package it for CentOS 8 Stream and CentOS 9 Stream as well. I've been following the CentOS Stream Contributing wiki page[2] to figure out how to get started with this. However, it seems like all of these instructions are only relevant if the package that someone would want to contribute to already has its own repo in the dist-git. I've made some good progress on the CentOS 8 Stream package already, and I'm used to the Fedora process where this is about the time that I'd post it for review soon as part of the authorization process for getting a new repo in the dist-git. Is there a CentOS equivalent to the Fedora package review process for getting a repo created? Thank you, Connor [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sevctl [2] https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute/CentOSStream

6 11

[Cloud SiG] CentOS Cloud SIG meeting (2021-04-08)
by Amy Marrich 16 Apr '21

16 Apr '21

====================================================== #centos-meeting: CentOS Cloud SIG meeting (2021-04-08) ====================================================== Meeting started by paulbisaacs at 15:02:45 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://www.centos.org/minutes/2021/April/centos-meeting.2021-04-08-15.02… . Meeting summary --------------- * CentOS Dojo (paulbisaacs, 15:08:30) * LINK: https://wiki.centos.org/Events/Dojo/May2021 (spotz, 15:11:12) * LINK: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/centos-cloud-sig (spotz, 15:12:06) * Wallaby (paulbisaacs, 15:17:00) * LINK: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-wallaby/ (jcapitao, 15:17:32) * Open Discussion (paulbisaacs, 15:25:28) * LINK: https://www.openstack.org/ptg/ (amoralej, 15:28:48) Meeting ended at 15:38:11 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * paulbisaacs (19) * spotz (14) * amoralej (13) * jcapitao (12) * centbot (5) * cyberpear (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot *Amy Marrich* She/Her/Hers Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms Red Hat, Inc <https://www.redhat.com/> amy(a)redhat.com Mobile: 954-818-0514 Slack: amarrich IRC: spotz <https://www.redhat.com/>

1 0

Advanced Virtualiazion builds for ppc64le and aarch64 missing on Stream
by Sandro Bonazzola 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Hi, while verifying https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/ovirt-release/+/114299/ noticed we are missing Advanced Virtualization builds for aarch64 and ppc64le on CentOS Stream. I guess it's similar to what happened with ovirt 4.4 and tracked here: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/254 Eduardo can you follow up on this and ensure we have ppc64le and aarch64 packages there? -- Sandro Bonazzola MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo(a)redhat.com <https://www.redhat.com/> *Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to answer this email out of your office hours.*

1 0

CentOS Stream Feature Request SIG Proposal
by Aoife Moloney 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Hi everyone, I would like to share with you all a proposal I have submitted on creating a SIG dedicated to reviewing and triaging feature requests that come from CentOS Stream development intended for future RHEL releases. The full proposal can be read on the CentOS wiki [0] and an issue has been opened on the CentOS board tracker [1] for review and decision. Here is the proposal summary and I welcome any thoughts, feedback and discussion: Purpose The purpose of this SIG will be to serve as a gate for feature requests that are first developed in CentOS Stream from contributors who wish to request these features to be included in future RHEL releases and are then filed in bugzilla. The SIGs overall goal is to make sure that features which have been filed and have technical merit are triaged internally to the correct venue for further review and development. The SIG will take ownership of regular bugzilla reviews filed under Stream and map feature requests from these bugzillas against the formal RHEL Feature Request criteria to identify and file qualifying requests inside Red Hat to achieve this. I hope you all have a lovely weekend! Kindest regards, Aoife, [0] - https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/StreamFeatureRequest [1] - https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issue/33 -- Aoife Moloney Product Owner Community Platform Engineering Team Red Hat EMEA Communications House Cork Road Waterford

12 16

yum module info squid
by Markus Falb 13 Apr '21

13 Apr '21

Hi, There are 2 versions of squid module available for CentOS 8 http://mirror.centos.org/centos-8/8.3.2011/AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/ squid-4.4-8.module_el8.3.0+623+2bb85980.2.x86_64.rpm squid-4.11-3.module_el8.3.0+558+7bf80f5f.x86_64.rpm But the output of yum module info does not give corresponding information [root@127162ed7c15 /]# yum module info squid Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:12 ago on Tue Apr 13 18:15:31 2021. Name : squid Stream : 4 [d][a] Version : 8030020201223011621 Context : 30b713e6 Architecture : x86_64 Profiles : common [d] Default profiles : common Repo : appstream Summary : Squid - Optimising Web Delivery Description : an initial version of the squid caching proxy module Requires : platform:[el8] Artifacts : libecap-0:1.0.1-2.module_el8.3.0+395+6cb406eb.src : libecap-0:1.0.1-2.module_el8.3.0+395+6cb406eb.x86_64 : libecap-debuginfo-0:1.0.1-2.module_el8.3.0+395+6cb406eb.x86_64 : libecap-debugsource-0:1.0.1-2.module_el8.3.0+395+6cb406eb.x86_64 : libecap-devel-0:1.0.1-2.module_el8.3.0+395+6cb406eb.x86_64 : squid-7:4.4-8.module_el8.3.0+623+2bb85980.2.src : squid-7:4.4-8.module_el8.3.0+623+2bb85980.2.x86_64 : squid-debuginfo-7:4.4-8.module_el8.3.0+623+2bb85980.2.x86_64 : squid-debugsource-7:4.4-8.module_el8.3.0+623+2bb85980.2.x86_64 One thing is, I would have expected both versions of squid listed. But CentOS repodata seems to generally list one version of the module? The other thing is that squid 4.4-8 has a modification date 2020-12-23 02:14, while squid 4.11-3 dates from 2020-11-04 02:43. The newer package is older, so only the older package is made available? kind regards, markus

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel