hi, i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current centos-5.6 release:
os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release): kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12 centos-release-notes-5.5-0
updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386 tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386
os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): etherboot-pxes-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-roms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-roms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-zroms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-zroms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.x86_64 tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.x86_64
anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4): bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4 ctdb-1.0.112-1.el5_5 ctdb-devel-1.0.112-1.el5_5 gail-1.9.2-3.el5_4 gail-devel-1.9.2-3.el5_4 pax-3.4-2.el5_4 taskjuggler-2.2.0-5.el5_4 vino-2.13.5-9.el5_4
and a lots of updates still missing: cman-2.0.115-68.el5_6.1 conga-0.12.2-24.el5_6.1 dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4 giflib-4.1.3-7.3.3.el5 glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5 jwhois-3.2.3-12.el5 kexec-tools-1.102pre-126.el5_6.4 libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 mod_nss-1.0.8-4.el5_6.1 opensm-3.3.3-1.el5_6.1 openssh-4.3p2-72.el5_6.3 openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4 pango-1.14.9-8.el5_6.2 paps-0.6.6-20.el5 postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6 quota-3.13-5.el5 screen-4.0.3-4.el5 sed-4.1.5-8.el5 spice-xpi-2.2-2.3.el5_6.1 subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.1 subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3 tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6 tzdata-2011d-3.el5 w3m-0.5.1-18.el5 wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_5.3 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-3 xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5_6
Dne 13.4.2011 0:36, Farkas Levente napsal(a):
hi, i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current centos-5.6 release:
os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release): kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12 centos-release-notes-5.5-0
updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386 tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386
Farkas, thanks for you deep report, quite surprising for me having taken very long QA time into account.
os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
should be updates/x86_64. Thanks, DH
Hi Farkas,
Thanks for the report. But I'd like to request you to not CC both the lists, its a waste of time. And this sort of stuff is much better off in the bugs.c.o instance.
On 04/12/2011 11:36 PM, Farkas Levente wrote:
os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
Easy to handle, I'll get that sorted. Ofcourse this wont change on the install media, just the mirrors.
updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
I know how this got missed :/ Will write a test to make sure that no package is released if its already in the tree. Should be fairly trivial.
os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
same as above.
anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1
This is a good point. We had quite a lot of issues getting anaconda to build and the final builds were actually done by hand. Both the src.rpm's are in the srpms repo. I do try and keep the two in sync most times.
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5<-> .el5_4):
Ned highlighted these issues at the QA stages, but we all felt that since the packages were already released into an older public repo, we would leave them as is and the next update for these packages should move the tag to the right place. or wherever it needs to be.
and a lots of updates still missing:
I havent dont any matches against your list here, but do know that there are a lot of updates in the queue behind the src.rpms. There are 5 updates not pushed through as yet:
dhcp kernel openoffice.org glibc spice_xpi
Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release.
Thanks
- KB
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1
This is a good point. We had quite a lot of issues getting anaconda to build and the final builds were actually done by hand.
That's quite worrying. Are the precise steps you took to "build by hand" recorded anywhere? Are the numerous issues you had in getting anaconda to build recorded, e.g. in a bug tracker?
Both the src.rpm's are in the srpms repo. I do try and keep the two in sync most times.
"most times", eh?
Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release.
Do you have a new ETA for release of the SRPMS?
Thanks.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release.
Do you have a new ETA for release of the SRPMS?
Is there an ETA yet?
Also, is there somewhere that I can find debuginfo packages?
Thanks
--- Charlie
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/18/2011 08:37 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
Is there an ETA yet?
should be about now.
No anaconda, pciutils or kudzu in:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
nor
http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
I haven't checked for what else is missing.
Also, is there somewhere that I can find debuginfo packages?
it should be already there in your /etc/yum.repos.d/ :)
No 5.6 anaconda, pciutils or kudzu debuginfo packages in:
On 04/21/2011 03:41 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
No anaconda, pciutils or kudzu in: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
Give it a day or so, I only fixed the dual srpm issue about 4 hrs back, Its prolly not even off into mirror.c.o and msync.c.o as yet :)
- KB
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/21/2011 03:41 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
No anaconda, pciutils or kudzu in: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
Give it a day or so, I only fixed the dual srpm issue about 4 hrs back, Its prolly not even off into mirror.c.o and msync.c.o as yet :)
3 days later, and no kudzu, anaconda, pciutils, and only the old
gfs-kmod (that's all I looked for).
Do you have a new ETA? Have you checked that the SRPMs are actually being exported?
[msync.c.o and mirror.c.o seem to have the same content, BTW.]
On 04/25/2011 09:28 AM, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/21/2011 03:41 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
No anaconda, pciutils or kudzu in: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
Give it a day or so, I only fixed the dual srpm issue about 4 hrs back, Its prolly not even off into mirror.c.o and msync.c.o as yet :)
3 days later, and no kudzu, anaconda, pciutils, and only the old
gfs-kmod (that's all I looked for).
Do you have a new ETA? Have you checked that the SRPMs are actually being exported?
[msync.c.o and mirror.c.o seem to have the same content, BTW.]
OK, I think I have pushed all the os and update SRPMS for 5.6 now
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Farkas Levente wrote:
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4): bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4
...
I think this:
nspr-4.8.6-1.el5.i386.rpm
should be:
nspr-4.8.6-1.el5_6.i386.rpm
so that it can displace this from 5.5 updates:
nspr-4.8.6-1.el5_5.i386.rpm
-
Charlie Brady -
David Hrbáč -
Farkas Levente -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh