Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
The reason I ask is it seems it is there to provide additional kernel modules not included in the base repo that could be added to 'extras' as kmods.
Now I know there are some who would like to boot off of fireware drives and such, but is it worth the development effort having a separate kernel tree that, frankly is always behind, needs extra resources to maintain and offers little over standalone kernel modules?
The resources and time that go into maintaining CentOS Plus could go into improving and maintaining the few add-on kernel modules and keeping up with security and bug updates.
Let outside repos provide custom kernels.
Well that is my .02.
-Ross
2009/9/10 Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com:
Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
Well, to add my 2 cents to it, I have never ever used the CentOS Plus repo. Not at work or at someones home. Having said this, I can imagine the need for (some?) people.
Given the fact that enough efforts need to go into it in order to maintain it, it might be an option to set this up differently or even end it.
Regards, Patrick
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
The reason I ask is it seems it is there to provide additional kernel modules not included in the base repo that could be added to 'extras' as kmods.
Now I know there are some who would like to boot off of fireware drives and such, but is it worth the development effort having a separate kernel tree that, frankly is always behind, needs extra resources to maintain and offers little over standalone kernel modules?
The resources and time that go into maintaining CentOS Plus could go into improving and maintaining the few add-on kernel modules and keeping up with security and bug updates.
Let outside repos provide custom kernels.
First, the CentOSPlus is more then just the modified kernel. Stuff like the RHWAS stuff will also end up in CentOSPlus when its released. It is basically a place where we put all things that conflict with the things in the base OS repo.
Secondly, the kernel itself is maintained by Akemi who is also part of the Elrepo team that builds kmods. So you can choose between installing kmod or using the centosplus kernel. And there are thing done in the centosplus kernel that can't be done using kmods. But I will let Akemi fill in the details.
So, the same person doing the CentOSPlus kernel is also doing kmods. There is no waist of resources :-)
Regards, Tim
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
The reason I ask is it seems it is there to provide additional kernel modules not included in the base repo that could be added to 'extras' as kmods. Let outside repos provide custom kernels.
First, the CentOSPlus is more then just the modified kernel. Stuff like the RHWAS stuff will also end up in CentOSPlus when its released. It is basically a place where we put all things that conflict with the things in the base OS repo.
Yes. I'm sure Ross meant just the centosplus kernel, not the centosplus repository.
Secondly, the kernel itself is maintained by Akemi who is also part of the Elrepo team that builds kmods. So you can choose between installing kmod or using the centosplus kernel. And there are thing done in the centosplus kernel that can't be done using kmods. But I will let Akemi fill in the details.
I have been helping with the maintenance of centosplus kernels for about a year. And yes, I am involved in the ELRepo project as well (I must admit that most of crucial works are the results of other members' contributions).
[OT] Just to defend myself ... I supply the src.rpm for the cplus kernel usually within 24 hours for each kernel update. "is always behind" may be a bit misleading ... :-) [/OT]
As Tim mentioned, enabling certain options for additional device support is not the only thing cplus kernels offer. There are patches that are applied which cannot be done in the distro kernels. For example, there are currently 4 patches in the cplus kernel. Two of them will be in the upcoming CentOS 5.4.
I think that many, if not all, of the kernel drivers enabled in the cplus kernel can / will be replaced by kABI-tracking kmods. In fact, Alan Bartlett made a list of such modules some time ago. At this moment, kmods for ntfs, ufs, jfs, reiserfs, and video4linux are available from ELRepo.
So, the same person doing the CentOSPlus kernel is also doing kmods. There is no waist of resources :-)
Indeed, my _waist_ is just fine. :-P
Akemi
On 09/10/2009 11:11 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
The reason I ask is it seems it is there to provide additional kernel modules not included in the base repo that could be added to 'extras' as kmods. Let outside repos provide custom kernels.
First, the CentOSPlus is more then just the modified kernel. Stuff like the RHWAS stuff will also end up in CentOSPlus when its released. It is basically a place where we put all things that conflict with the things in the base OS repo.
Yes. I'm sure Ross meant just the centosplus kernel, not the centosplus repository.
Secondly, the kernel itself is maintained by Akemi who is also part of the Elrepo team that builds kmods. So you can choose between installing kmod or using the centosplus kernel. And there are thing done in the centosplus kernel that can't be done using kmods. But I will let Akemi fill in the details.
I have been helping with the maintenance of centosplus kernels for about a year. And yes, I am involved in the ELRepo project as well (I must admit that most of crucial works are the results of other members' contributions).
[OT] Just to defend myself ... I supply the src.rpm for the cplus kernel usually within 24 hours for each kernel update. "is always behind" may be a bit misleading ... :-) [/OT]
As Tim mentioned, enabling certain options for additional device support is not the only thing cplus kernels offer. There are patches that are applied which cannot be done in the distro kernels. For example, there are currently 4 patches in the cplus kernel. Two of them will be in the upcoming CentOS 5.4.
I think that many, if not all, of the kernel drivers enabled in the cplus kernel can / will be replaced by kABI-tracking kmods. In fact, Alan Bartlett made a list of such modules some time ago. At this moment, kmods for ntfs, ufs, jfs, reiserfs, and video4linux are available from ELRepo.
So, the same person doing the CentOSPlus kernel is also doing kmods. There is no waist of resources :-)
Indeed, my _waist_ is just fine. :-P
Aside from Akemi's waist ... one other very important point that she makes is that for several of the plus kernels at several points in time there are patches applied to fix things that are not fixed yet upstream and that we can not fix in the main line kernels (as we do not apply patches to those).
These patches can be for things like a drbd performance, NFS issues, etc.
They are normally in the upstream testing process/bugzilla, but can sometimes take months to fix (or never be fixed ... like NTFS in the 5.x kernel, we are not patching that now, but might later) upstream.
I am also a bit hesitant in producing kABI type kernels for CentOS-4 as there is no tracking mechanism to require the correct version of each of the base kernel requires as there is in CentOS-5, so weak updates can create problems for users in CentOS-4. I am OK with that for things outside the main kernel, but for things that are part of the included kernel, I am more hesitant.
I do like the fact that these are also in ELrepo and give users another option for installation if they want to go that route.
On Sep 11, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 09/10/2009 11:11 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Tim Verhoeven tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
Is CentOS Plus really necessary?
The reason I ask is it seems it is there to provide additional kernel modules not included in the base repo that could be added to 'extras' as kmods. Let outside repos provide custom kernels.
First, the CentOSPlus is more then just the modified kernel. Stuff like the RHWAS stuff will also end up in CentOSPlus when its released. It is basically a place where we put all things that conflict with the things in the base OS repo.
Yes. I'm sure Ross meant just the centosplus kernel, not the centosplus repository.
I was concentrating on the kernel, I mean everything else in centosplus could conceivably go into 'extras'.
We definitely need a repo for 'extra' non-upstream items.
Secondly, the kernel itself is maintained by Akemi who is also part of the Elrepo team that builds kmods. So you can choose between installing kmod or using the centosplus kernel. And there are thing done in the centosplus kernel that can't be done using kmods. But I will let Akemi fill in the details.
I have been helping with the maintenance of centosplus kernels for about a year. And yes, I am involved in the ELRepo project as well (I must admit that most of crucial works are the results of other members' contributions).
[OT] Just to defend myself ... I supply the src.rpm for the cplus kernel usually within 24 hours for each kernel update. "is always behind" may be a bit misleading ... :-) [/OT]
To be honest I haven't tracked cplus in a couple of years and just remember the frustration I had back then when the kernel wasn't updated timely and third party kernel modules would get updated for newer base kernels or kernel modules in cplus wouldn't get updated when the cplus kernel was, you get the picture.
As Tim mentioned, enabling certain options for additional device support is not the only thing cplus kernels offer. There are patches that are applied which cannot be done in the distro kernels. For example, there are currently 4 patches in the cplus kernel. Two of them will be in the upcoming CentOS 5.4.
I think that many, if not all, of the kernel drivers enabled in the cplus kernel can / will be replaced by kABI-tracking kmods. In fact, Alan Bartlett made a list of such modules some time ago. At this moment, kmods for ntfs, ufs, jfs, reiserfs, and video4linux are available from ELRepo.
The more the better, I think by reducing the changes needed to building the cplus kernel and trying to restrict it to just those patches to fix known problems with the base kernel, would be better.
So, the same person doing the CentOSPlus kernel is also doing kmods. There is no waist of resources :-)
Indeed, my _waist_ is just fine. :-P
Aside from Akemi's waist ... one other very important point that she makes is that for several of the plus kernels at several points in time there are patches applied to fix things that are not fixed yet upstream and that we can not fix in the main line kernels (as we do not apply patches to those).
These patches can be for things like a drbd performance, NFS issues, etc.
Yes, I remember submitting one such patch way back.
Ok, I agree, keeping a cplus kernel is worth while for patches to base kernel upstream is slow to incorporate, but support the move to bring additional functionality through the use of separate kmods instead of rolling them into cplus whenever possible.
They are normally in the upstream testing process/bugzilla, but can sometimes take months to fix (or never be fixed ... like NTFS in the 5.x kernel, we are not patching that now, but might later) upstream.
If a more recent NTFS kernel module can be backported and provided as a standalone that works, why bother.
There is also ntfs-3g which is good enough.
I am also a bit hesitant in producing kABI type kernels for CentOS-4 as there is no tracking mechanism to require the correct version of each of the base kernel requires as there is in CentOS-5, so weak updates can create problems for users in CentOS-4. I am OK with that for things outside the main kernel, but for things that are part of the included kernel, I am more hesitant.
How about adding more support for dkms for C4?
I do like the fact that these are also in ELrepo and give users another option for installation if they want to go that route.
Ok, so is ELrepo the "officially supported" third party repo for CentOS, like epel is for RHEL?
I don't like the fact that epel doesn't tag, so I no longer use them.
-Ross
On 09/11/2009 02:43 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
Ok, so is ELrepo the "officially supported" third party repo for CentOS, like epel is for RHEL?
the closest thing to an official extras repo outside .centos.org is rpmrepo.org - aside from that is the extras repo actually hosted at centos.org.
I've just read this entire thread and I totally fail to see what your point is. The CentOSPlus repo makes it possible to do somethings in a more distro friendly way and allows people to opt in should they so desire, if thats something you dont want to do - feel free to stay ( as is default ) opted out.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 09/11/2009 02:43 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
Ok, so is ELrepo the "officially supported" third party repo for CentOS, like epel is for RHEL?
the closest thing to an official extras repo outside .centos.org is rpmrepo.org - aside from that is the extras repo actually hosted at centos.org.
I've just read this entire thread and I totally fail to see what your point is. The CentOSPlus repo makes it possible to do somethings in a more distro friendly way and allows people to opt in should they so desire, if thats something you dont want to do - feel free to stay ( as is default ) opted out.
The original point of the thread was to bring to question whether the cplus kernel was eating valuable developer time and from the informative responses I got from Tim, Akemi and Johnny I was assured it wasn't and that it is used to provide access to valuable kernel patches that are slow to be incorporated upstream.
It was not a critique, but an explorative narrative, the outcome of which was: valuable resource.
-Ross
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 09/11/2009 02:43 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
Ok, so is ELrepo the "officially supported" third party repo for CentOS, like epel is for RHEL?
the closest thing to an official extras repo outside .centos.org is rpmrepo.org - aside from that is the extras repo actually hosted at centos.org.
Does rpmrepo actually exist?
On 09/11/2009 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Does rpmrepo actually exist?
thats a good question!
I think most of whats needed to be in place, is in place, it needs a bit of a push and some leadership to get off the ground and actually churning
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:01:48AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 09/11/2009 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Does rpmrepo actually exist?
thats a good question!
I think most of whats needed to be in place, is in place, it needs a bit of a push and some leadership to get off the ground and actually churning
And many people to contribute - it is a bit stalling on not having enough work force to evaluate/setup the missing build infrastruture. Anyone caring to help can join the mailing lists and add his momentum.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@atrpms.net wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:01:48AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 09/11/2009 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Does rpmrepo actually exist?
thats a good question!
I think most of whats needed to be in place, is in place, it needs a bit of a push and some leadership to get off the ground and actually churning
And many people to contribute - it is a bit stalling on not having enough work force to evaluate/setup the missing build infrastruture. Anyone caring to help can join the mailing lists and add his momentum.
Umm, ok. But to be honest, the "People involved" page reads like a who's-who of the guru's in open source distribution. It's a bit daunting. :-) I'll keep an eye on it anyway, in case I can pitch in somehow...
jerry
Am Samstag, den 12.09.2009, 06:47 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:01:48AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 09/11/2009 06:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Does rpmrepo actually exist?
thats a good question!
I think most of whats needed to be in place, is in place, it needs a bit of a push and some leadership to get off the ground and actually churning
And many people to contribute - it is a bit stalling on not having enough work force to evaluate/setup the missing build infrastruture. Anyone caring to help can join the mailing lists and add his momentum.
I am waiting to get a wiki account for month....
financial.com AG
Munich head office/Hauptsitz München: Maria-Probst-Str. 19 | 80939 München | Germany Frankfurt branch office/Niederlassung Frankfurt: Messeturm | Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage 49 | 60327 Frankfurt | Germany Management board/Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Boehnert (CEO/Vorsitzender) | Dr. Alexis Eisenhofer | Dr. Yann Samson | Matthias Wiederwach Supervisory board/Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Dr. Ernst zur Linden (chairman/Vorsitzender) Register court/Handelsregister: Munich – HRB 128 972 | Sales tax ID number/St.Nr.: DE205 370 553
-
Akemi Yagi -
Axel Thimm -
Christoph Maser -
Jerry Amundson -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Patrick Moelands -
Ralph Angenendt -
Ross Walker -
Tim Verhoeven