As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through 6.4+updates initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing right now).
So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live at this location:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/
The two lists so far are:
EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt
1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 in their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is the order they will be imported into git. What is important for history is that (for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be:
389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm
All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com and be imported.
===========================================
2. Next is the centos-6-srpms-modified.txt file .. that actually contains a list (in the order they will be imported) of all source packages modified for CentOS-6 (again 6.0 to 6.4+updates) and their RHEL counterparts. All packages without a .centos. in the name will come from ftp.redhat.com, all packages with a centos in the name will come from vault.centos.org and the order should alternate so that we have RHEL package and then CentOS Package, then repeat for each NAME for an SRPM. So, for example, for anaconda, it would be:
anaconda-13.21.82-1.el6.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.82-1.el6.centos.1.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.117-1.el6.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.117-1.el6.centos.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.149-1.el6.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.149-1.el6.centos.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.176-1.el6_3.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.176-1.el6.centos.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.195-1.el6.src.rpm anaconda-13.21.195-1.el6.centos.1.src.rpm
===========================================
3. I will be creating a 3rd list (not yet done) of the kernel packages since we actually have the 'exact same' ENVR for kernel packages as RHEL in CentOS so that 3rd party kernel drivers work for the boot isos. That list will be added sometime today.
===========================================
What I would like for some one (as many as will do it :D) to verify that importing things in this order into git will result in the proper git tree for each 'name' package ... so the above 389-ds-base will produce chronological order imports ... same for anaconda in #2 ... with the added desire to get RHEL then CentOS packges in the correct order.
You can see the names of the SRPMs in every CentOS release in vault.centos.org/6.0 through 6.4 .. we are concerned about os/ and updates/ SRPMS.
Does this make sense, and are there any errors in the lists?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
May I assume that you actually mean the source code for the SRPMs, and not the binary SRPMs themselves?
I so, cool. May I also assume that you don't mean to include CentOS 5 in this? Or is that also in the longer term plans?
And, hmm. How *should* we best write the plural of SRPM?
On 10/08/2014 12:56 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
May I assume that you actually mean the source code for the SRPMs, and not the binary SRPMs themselves?
this will be the same as whts on git.centos.org now for c7, no different.
I so, cool. May I also assume that you don't mean to include CentOS 5 in this? Or is that also in the longer term plans?
no plans for c5 yet, that might happen down the road, but no plans at this poing.
Also, we dont have a confirmed timeline for the C6 stuff - we are still talking to the rhel folks about if/when/how this might come about.
- KB
On 10/07/2014 06:56 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
May I assume that you actually mean the source code for the SRPMs, and not the binary SRPMs themselves?
As KB said, when this happens, it (c6) will look the same way that c7 does now. Which for the historical existing sources will be an exploded SRPM in our current git.centos.org format, imported in the correct order. The older branches already exist in git.centos.org, they are just empty for c6 (or older) for most things (except currently the Upgrade Tool sources, I believe, which exist for c6 and c7).
I so, cool. May I also assume that you don't mean to include CentOS 5 in this? Or is that also in the longer term plans?
Maybe ... we are taking this one step at a time and we want to fix a couple underlying issues with git.centos.org (the cache thing that shows multiple projects for the same repo, etc). But the overall goal is at some point to do all the sources exactly the same for all projects, be it base OS versions or SIG versions, etc ... and all of them on git.centos.org.
But the next step in the process is to do CentOS-6 .. once that is fully functional and operating then it may also happen on CentOS-5 (whose list is twice as long to get the original imports done, etc). A pain vs. gain decision will likely be made for CentOS-5 (the volume of updates for 5 is much smaller than 6 and 7, as it is in maintenance mode upstream now, etc.).
We (the CentOS team) do not actually control when the move to this mechanism for the upstream sources happens (or does not happen) as the initial import comes from outside our system (by Red Hat for RHEL sources).
We are just trying to make sure we develop lists at this point to get the 'history' correct so that all the Sources live there for a given major CentOS version (ie 6.0 from release to current imports for 6.x coming in) and do not just show up in the middle at some cut-over date with part SRPMs living external and part in git.centos.org. This way, we have one system to use as authoritative and do not need to go back and forth to look for older items, etc. That is to say, all CentOS-6 from 6.0 initial release to current 6.
And, hmm. How *should* we best write the plural of SRPM?
I usually do SRPMs ... or SRPMS :)
Kind of like how do we say CentOS ... is it centos like mentos (the candy), is it like cintas or is it like Cent (ie a penny) and the letters O S. We don't really care as long as you use it :D
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/07/2014 06:56 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I so, cool. May I also assume that you don't mean to include CentOS 5 in this? Or is that also in the longer term plans?
Maybe ... we are taking this one step at a time and we want to fix a couple underlying issues with git.centos.org (the cache thing that shows multiple projects for the same repo, etc). But the overall goal is at some point to do all the sources exactly the same for all projects, be it base OS versions or SIG versions, etc ... and all of them on git.centos.org.
All very cool.
And, hmm. How *should* we best write the plural of SRPM?
I usually do SRPMs ... or SRPMS :)
Kind of like how do we say CentOS ... is it centos like mentos (the candy), is it like cintas or is it like Cent (ie a penny) and the letters O S. We don't really care as long as you use it :D
So you'd be willing to use "Centalabra"?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through 6.4+updates initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing right now).
So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live at this location:
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/
The two lists so far are:
EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt
- The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 in
their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is the order they will be imported into git. What is important for history is that (for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be:
389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm
All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com and be imported.
I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you confirm?
On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now. We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through 6.4+updates initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing right now). So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live at this location: http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/ The two lists so far are: EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 in their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is the order they will be imported into git. What is important for history is that (for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be: 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported.I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you confirm?
Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos name.
I've generated my own list of ordered sources. Following are the techniques, scripts, and data. Comments or corrections on any of these would be most appreciated.
Sources of Data 1) ftp.redhat.com all *.src.rpm files under redhat/linux/enterprise/6*/en/os/SRPMS 2) vault.centos.org all *.src.rpm files under 6.*/{os,updates,fasttrack}
If anyone feels I'm starting from the wrong data, please say so. I debated about including the fasttrack dirs, but as this point I've convinced myself that it is probably correct, or at worst harmless).
I wrote a script to do all the heavy lifting. For args it expects files containing lists of paths to source rpms (there are too many srpms involved to pass them directly on the command line). The script identifies srpms with identical contents by comparing the list of files and their hashs (so a centos rebuilt srpm with no changes is considered a duplicate of the rh one even though some of the headers change (e.g. vendor, buildtime).
The script sorts first by package name, then by version-release *with dist tag removed*, then by rh vs centos, then by full version-release. An srpm is considered a centos rpm if either the vendor is centos, or a centos dist tag appears in the release, otherwise it is considered an rh srpm.
I have posted the script and its current output here: https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.py https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.log
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now. We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through6.4+updates
initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing rightnow).
So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live atthis
location: http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/ The two lists so far are: EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 in their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is theorder
they will be imported into git. What is important for history isthat
(for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be: 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported.I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you confirm?
Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos name.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Some oddities in the data
1) Some odd rebuilds
rebuilds of RHEL6.0 beta packages:
fence-virt-0.2.1-3.el6.src.rpm libvpd-2.1.1-2.el6.src.rpm
A rhev build thrown in? vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
A number of non-kernel same-nvr rebuilds: subversion-1.6.11-7.el6.src.rpm dhcp-4.1.1-34.P1.el6_4.1.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-7.el6.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-8.el6_5.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-9.el6.src.rpm
2) Some kernels seemingly missing rebuilds
kernel-2.6.32-358.46.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.46.2.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.48.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.49.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-431.37.1.el6.src.rpm
Not a big deal if they weren't rebuilt. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.
3) A number of intermittent customizations
I suspect these are all normal cases of needing to tweak something one time to get a build through or to solve a qa issue. Again, just want to make sure I'm not missing something
ipa librsvg2 openscap openssl pango qemu-kvm (* see 4) subversion virt-who
4) qemu-kvm ordering
I see 5 custom rebuilds of qemu-kvm, but their n-v-r-s all sort lower than they should. E.g.
qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6_4.9.src.rpm
all sort lower than: qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.9.src.rpm
At this point I'm assuming that the first set are all rebuilds of the second and that I should manually reorder these for the import (or add some very special case hacks to the script).
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Mike McLean mikem@imponderable.org wrote:
I've generated my own list of ordered sources. Following are the techniques, scripts, and data. Comments or corrections on any of these would be most appreciated.
Sources of Data
- ftp.redhat.com all *.src.rpm files under redhat/linux/enterprise/6*/en/os/SRPMS
- vault.centos.org all *.src.rpm files under 6.*/{os,updates,fasttrack}
If anyone feels I'm starting from the wrong data, please say so. I debated about including the fasttrack dirs, but as this point I've convinced myself that it is probably correct, or at worst harmless).
I wrote a script to do all the heavy lifting. For args it expects files containing lists of paths to source rpms (there are too many srpms involved to pass them directly on the command line). The script identifies srpms with identical contents by comparing the list of files and their hashs (so a centos rebuilt srpm with no changes is considered a duplicate of the rh one even though some of the headers change (e.g. vendor, buildtime).
The script sorts first by package name, then by version-release *with dist tag removed*, then by rh vs centos, then by full version-release. An srpm is considered a centos rpm if either the vendor is centos, or a centos dist tag appears in the release, otherwise it is considered an rh srpm.
I have posted the script and its current output here: https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.py https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.log
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be importedinto
git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will beprocessed
like CentOS-7 ones are now. We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through6.4+updates
initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing rightnow).
So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live atthis
location: http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/ The two lists so far are: EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6in
their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is theorder
they will be imported into git. What is important for history isthat
(for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be: 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported.I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you confirm?
Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos name.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
I've adjusted the script to work around the qemu sorting and report a bit more info. all here: https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/ (script has been replaced, the current log is centos_srpm_sort2c.log.
One of the changes is that I had it report when package names are completely missing from one side or the other (as opposed to just missing a build somewhere). This leads to more oddities
5) vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c. The rh ftp only has vdsm sources under RHEV and RHS, and nothing quite so old as 4.9-63. Does anyone know the story behind this build? Was it pulled in for a reason, or is this just a case of an accidental ftp posting that got rebuilt before someone noticed and removed it?
6) a number of package names unique to rhel
Many of these make sense. Heck, they probably all have good reasons, but I figure as long as we're here it would be nice for folks to have a look and make sure. Most seem to fall into the following categories: - rhn-related stuff (e.g. subscription-manager) - rh release/branding related stuff (e.g. redhat-release-*) - arch specific stuff (e.g. s390utils) - eal4 cert related (cc-eal4-config-rhel62)
A few seem to related to specialized hardware. I'm not 100% sure why that excludes them from CentOS, but here is that list: hpwdt libibverbs-rocee libmlx4-rocee
Finally there are the ones I'm really not sure about. I suspect that all of these have a good reason for exclusion. I suspect in most cases it is because they are specific to one of the more specialized variants of rhel (e.g. sap, sap-hana) compat-gcc-295 compat-sap-c++ qpid-qmf sapconf snd-hda vhostmd
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Mike McLean mikem@imponderable.org wrote:
Some oddities in the data
- Some odd rebuilds
rebuilds of RHEL6.0 beta packages:
fence-virt-0.2.1-3.el6.src.rpm libvpd-2.1.1-2.el6.src.rpm
A rhev build thrown in? vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
A number of non-kernel same-nvr rebuilds: subversion-1.6.11-7.el6.src.rpm dhcp-4.1.1-34.P1.el6_4.1.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-7.el6.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-8.el6_5.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-9.el6.src.rpm
- Some kernels seemingly missing rebuilds
kernel-2.6.32-358.46.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.46.2.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.48.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.49.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-431.37.1.el6.src.rpm
Not a big deal if they weren't rebuilt. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.
- A number of intermittent customizations
I suspect these are all normal cases of needing to tweak something one time to get a build through or to solve a qa issue. Again, just want to make sure I'm not missing something
ipa librsvg2 openscap openssl pango qemu-kvm (* see 4) subversion virt-who
- qemu-kvm ordering
I see 5 custom rebuilds of qemu-kvm, but their n-v-r-s all sort lower than they should. E.g.
qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6_4.9.src.rpm
all sort lower than: qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.9.src.rpm
At this point I'm assuming that the first set are all rebuilds of the second and that I should manually reorder these for the import (or add some very special case hacks to the script).
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Mike McLean mikem@imponderable.org wrote:
I've generated my own list of ordered sources. Following are the techniques, scripts, and data. Comments or corrections on any of these would be most appreciated.
Sources of Data
- ftp.redhat.com all *.src.rpm files under redhat/linux/enterprise/6*/en/os/SRPMS
- vault.centos.org all *.src.rpm files under 6.*/{os,updates,fasttrack}
If anyone feels I'm starting from the wrong data, please say so. I debated about including the fasttrack dirs, but as this point I've convinced myself that it is probably correct, or at worst harmless).
I wrote a script to do all the heavy lifting. For args it expects files containing lists of paths to source rpms (there are too many srpms involved to pass them directly on the command line). The script identifies srpms with identical contents by comparing the list of files and their hashs (so a centos rebuilt srpm with no changes is considered a duplicate of the rh one even though some of the headers change (e.g. vendor, buildtime).
The script sorts first by package name, then by version-release *with dist tag removed*, then by rh vs centos, then by full version-release. An srpm is considered a centos rpm if either the vendor is centos, or a centos dist tag appears in the release, otherwise it is considered an rh srpm.
I have posted the script and its current output here: https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.py https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.log
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be importedinto
git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will beprocessed
like CentOS-7 ones are now. We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through6.4+updates
initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing rightnow).
So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live atthis
location: http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/ The two lists so far are: EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt centos-6-srpms-modified.txt 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6in
their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is theorder
they will be imported into git. What is important for history isthat
(for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for 389-ds-base would be: 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported.I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can
you
confirm?
Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos name.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Mike McLean wrote:
- vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c.
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/centos-second/vault/SRPMS/6.1/updates/SRPMS/vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
I see it as from the 6.1 era according to my 'additive' mirroring ... additive in the sense that uniquely named files are not deleted once seen, using a bit of basename() post-processing
for a reason, or is this just a case of an accidental ftp posting that got rebuilt before someone noticed and removed it?
perhaps, but my processes should have 'caught it' from ftp.r.c then, and I do not show it in that part of my mirror
No idea where it came from
-- Russ herrold
On 17/11/14 22:03, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Mike McLean wrote:
- vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c.
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/centos-second/vault/SRPMS/6.1/updates/SRPMS/vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
I see it as from the 6.1 era according to my 'additive' mirroring ... additive in the sense that uniquely named files are not deleted once seen, using a bit of basename() post-processing
yeah, i remember this one - it was mis-released upstream iirc, and then later moved aronud ( was it a rhev package ?? )
- KB
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
- vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c.
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/centos-second/vault/SRPMS/6.1/updates/SRPMS/vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm
I see it as from the 6.1 era according to my 'additive' mirroring ... additive in the sense that uniquely named files are not deleted once seen, using a bit of basename() post-processing
yeah, i remember this one - it was mis-released upstream iirc, and then later moved aronud ( was it a rhev package ?? )
Yes, it appears to have been part of rhev-h.
So if it was an error, should we exclude it from the import?
On 11/18/2014 01:07 PM, Mike McLean wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org mailto:mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>> 5) vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm >> >> Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c. > > /var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/centos-second/vault/SRPMS/6.1/updates/SRPMS/vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm > > I see it as from the 6.1 era according to my 'additive' > mirroring ... additive in the sense that uniquely named files > are not deleted once seen, using a bit of basename() > post-processing yeah, i remember this one - it was mis-released upstream iirc, and then later moved aronud ( was it a rhev package ?? )Yes, it appears to have been part of rhev-h.
So if it was an error, should we exclude it from the import?
I would say no if:
1. It is not maintained by CentOS
2. It was mistakenly released into the stream only once upstream, and then removed.
3. It was removed by CentOS.
Since all of those are true, I would say we do not need to import it.
It does not hurt anything to have it in git either, but I don't think it is required though.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Mike McLean -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
R P Herrold -
Trevor Hemsley