Hi all,
I hope this is the correct list for this question: how trivial/non- trivial would it be to get CentOS/SPARC up to speed again on a Netra X1? I have primarily used Linux on x86 the last twelve years or so. I have only little experience with SPARC machines.
The reason I am asking is because I have seen some cheap Netra X1s on the net at low prices, and it seems like a fun project for the summer :).
-- Daniel
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:14 +0200, Daniel de Kok wrote:
The reason I am asking is because I have seen some cheap Netra X1s on the net at low prices, and it seems like a fun project for the summer :).
Ah, I see that most or all updates for SPARC are at 4.3 level. My bad!
-- Daniel
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:14 +0200, Daniel de Kok wrote:
The reason I am asking is because I have seen some cheap Netra X1s on the net at low prices, and it seems like a fun project for the summer :).
Ah, I see that most or all updates for SPARC are at 4.3 level. My bad!
We are presently looking for a Sparc maintainer ( or two, would be better ) - Pasi has way too much work on his plate at the moment and is also already doing ( and will continue to do so, for the time being ) his other arch's ( ia64/ s390(x) / Alpha ). But he has expressed desire to resign the Sparc build.
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
Would a NetraX1 be beefy enough to be a build box ?
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
We are presently looking for a Sparc maintainer ( or two, would be better ) - Pasi has way too much work on his plate at the moment and is also already doing ( and will continue to do so, for the time being ) his other arch's ( ia64/ s390(x) / Alpha ). But he has expressed desire to resign the Sparc build.
I could get my hands on a 220R with 36G (2x Ultrasparc) in a few weeks, but don't have the time at the moment to speed up that process. I also talked to Pasi and he doesn't have the time to "work in" a new person. But there's still some interest on our side to work on this, though it's not completely clear, where the hooks and claws are on that build (no real C confidence over here).
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
So if that process can be doubled ...
I don't see much chances though that I could give away user accounts on that machine, which are reachable from the outside world, as that machine sits in our server intranet. And still has to lose the job it's doing at the moment.
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
this is good stuff, we should just a wiki section started on this I think.
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote: I could get my hands on a 220R with 36G (2x Ultrasparc) in a few weeks, but don't have the time at the moment to speed up that process. I also
A few weeks should be ok, its not something that is effecting us this much, Also Pasi mentioned dropping it at the end of the 4.3 cycle ( which is still a month+ away ).
talked to Pasi and he doesn't have the time to "work in" a new person. But there's still some interest on our side to work on this, though it's not completely clear, where the hooks and claws are on that build (no real C confidence over here).
What we need to do is get the h/w setup at a central space where someone ( even if its just the one person who has physical access ) can build on. Apart from that once the CentOS4.3/sparc is setup on the machine I am sure we can all pitch in and help out.
I suppose whats critical here is that we get a few people involved right from the start.
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
So if that process can be doubled ...
I don't see much chances though that I could give away user accounts on that machine, which are reachable from the outside world, as that machine sits in our server intranet. And still has to lose the job it's doing at the moment.
thats not a problem, I think there might be enough machines locally that people could contribute from off-site, as long as there is some means ( we can setup whatever is required ) to get code over into the buildsystem and built + scp'ed out.
And I dont imagine you will have that ADSL-Curse of .4MB/sec upload limit either :)
Karanbir Singh wrote: I could get my hands on a 220R with 36G (2x Ultrasparc) in a few weeks, but don't have the time at the moment to speed up that process. I also
Hi,
I can help with the recompiling/debugging/developing of some srpms for the sparcs, maybe not all of them as I don't have a hardware on hand but I can help from a remote shell and of course having contact with someone onsite in case something goes wild.
I have some experience working with rpms and Im really interested in helping in some ways the CentOS project.
Im located in the internet, sorry, in Quito - Ecuador but connected to the internet 100%.
I suppose whats critical here is that we get a few people involved right from the start.
Getting a sparc hardware down here is not impossible, but if possible I would preffer to use a remote one, until seeing how the project evolve and then try to get some hardware to do the tests locally.
regards ernesto
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:22 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I'd be willing to invest time to see if I could help here.
Would a NetraX1 be beefy enough to be a build box ?
The particular machine I have my eye on has a 500 MHz IIe CPU and 1GB RAM. So, they are fairly slow by today's standards, but I suppose compilation can be offloaded a bit to an Athlon64 machine with distcc and a cross-compiler?
-- Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:22 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I'd be willing to invest time to see if I could help here.
yes! that would be great.
Would a NetraX1 be beefy enough to be a build box ?
The particular machine I have my eye on has a 500 MHz IIe CPU and 1GB RAM.
Should not be much of a problem - as long as you have a usable system, we can setup a collaborative process, so the builds can be offloaded to a chunkier machine if required.
What would count a lot more is the testing and some developer time, if you can put that in.
So, they are fairly slow by today's standards, but I suppose compilation can be offloaded a bit to an Athlon64 machine with distcc and a cross-compiler?
dist-cc and xcompile is prolly something that we dont really want to do.
- KB
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 00:07 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Should not be much of a problem - as long as you have a usable system, we can setup a collaborative process, so the builds can be offloaded to a chunkier machine if required.
What would count a lot more is the testing and some developer time, if you can put that in.
OK, good! I'll try to get my hand on one of those boxes and help out where possible.
-- Daniel
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 08:22, Karanbir Singh wrote:
We are presently looking for a Sparc maintainer ( or two, would be better ) - Pasi has way too much work on his plate at the moment and is also already doing ( and will continue to do so, for the time being ) his other arch's ( ia64/ s390(x) / Alpha ). But he has expressed desire to resign the Sparc build.
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I would love to donate time, but don't have any. I DO have quite a few Netra T1 105's I was planning to try to sell. Perhaps donating 1 or 2 would help. Older and slower than the X1's though.
http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/Systems/Netra_t1_105_shared/spec.html
Would a NetraX1 be beefy enough to be a build box ?
I've often wondered that, what sort of hardware do you guys generally devote to a build box?
Kevan Benson wrote:
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I would love to donate time, but don't have any. I DO have quite a few Netra T1 105's I was planning to try to sell. Perhaps donating 1 or 2 would help. Older and slower than the X1's though.
If people are interested in helping with the testing and development side of things - rather than building itself, these box's would come in handy.
What part of the world are you located in ?
http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/Systems/Netra_t1_105_shared/spec.html
Would a NetraX1 be beefy enough to be a build box ?
I've often wondered that, what sort of hardware do you guys generally devote to a build box?
There are quite a few box's being used in the i386 and x86_64 buildsystems, a couple of Sun V20z's and home brew AMD64's and Xeon's and P-4's. Lots of ram and lots of drive space.
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 16:16, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Kevan Benson wrote:
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I would love to donate time, but don't have any. I DO have quite a few Netra T1 105's I was planning to try to sell. Perhaps donating 1 or 2 would help. Older and slower than the X1's though.
If people are interested in helping with the testing and development side of things - rather than building itself, these box's would come in handy.
What part of the world are you located in ?
Northern California (Santa Rosa). San Francisco bay area.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Kevan Benson wrote:
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I would love to donate time, but don't have any. I DO have quite a few Netra T1 105's I was planning to try to sell. Perhaps donating 1 or 2 would help. Older and slower than the X1's though.
If people are interested in helping with the testing and development side of things - rather than building itself, these box's would come in handy.
I have an Ultra 5 lying around...would this box be of any use in anything?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
We are presently looking for a Sparc maintainer ( or two, would be better ) - Pasi has way too much work on his plate at the moment and is also already doing ( and will continue to do so, for the time being ) his other arch's ( ia64/ s390(x) / Alpha ). But he has expressed desire to resign the Sparc build.
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I have a couple of SunBlade 100's sitting here at the house. I would love to help out in CentOS Sparc development.
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 22:20 -0500, Anthony Brooks wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
We are presently looking for a Sparc maintainer ( or two, would be better ) - Pasi has way too much work on his plate at the moment and is also already doing ( and will continue to do so, for the time being ) his other arch's ( ia64/ s390(x) / Alpha ). But he has expressed desire to resign the Sparc build.
If you are interested, and have the time to spend this might be something you can get involved with ?
I have a couple of SunBlade 100's sitting here at the house. I would love to help out in CentOS Sparc development.
I have a very nice donation coming from Sun wrt SPARC .. it is a T2000 machine (quite an impressive machine actually ... 32GB RAM, 8 Core 1.2GHZ processor). The server should be here by the middle of next week ... and I will be able to see if I can compile normal SPARC packages as well as new Niagara packages on it.
Sun has been very nice to CentOS ... I would like to thank them once again for an unbelievable hardware donation.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have a very nice donation coming from Sun wrt SPARC .. it is a T2000 machine (quite an impressive machine actually ... 32GB RAM, 8 Core 1.2GHZ processor). The server should be here by the middle of next week ... and I will be able to see if I can compile normal SPARC packages as well as new Niagara packages on it.
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
- KB
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
- KB
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine. David Hrbáč
David Hrbáč wrote:
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine.
no. We dont / cant use Mock or any such builder for the distro. I am doing some docs + a sort of HOWTO for people to use the system that we have in place. Will post it on the wiki and a URL here as soon as its done.
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:09 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
David Hrbáč wrote:
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine.
no. We dont / cant use Mock or any such builder for the distro. I am doing some docs + a sort of HOWTO for people to use the system that we have in place. Will post it on the wiki and a URL here as soon as its done.
Why can't mock be used?
-sv
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 07:28 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:09 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
David Hrbáč wrote:
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine.
no. We dont / cant use Mock or any such builder for the distro. I am doing some docs + a sort of HOWTO for people to use the system that we have in place. Will post it on the wiki and a URL here as soon as its done.
Why can't mock be used?
-sv
As you should well be aware :)
There are many hidden build requirements in the FC3 / RHEL4 package set. So, a technology like mock will not (at lease easily) properly build all packages for that group of packages.
The upstream team is working hard to address those issues and it should not be the case with newer distros. They will (supposedly) properly call out all build requirements.
If all the packages properly called out all their "build requires", then using a system like mock would work (that is, using a system that creates a chroot containing a core set of packages and all the "build requires" of the package to be built).
Currently, the CentOS build team uses a predefined build host to build packages. That build host is a controlled machine that has the latest version of the arch in question and no other packages.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 06:37 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 07:28 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:09 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
David Hrbáč wrote:
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine.
no. We dont / cant use Mock or any such builder for the distro. I am doing some docs + a sort of HOWTO for people to use the system that we have in place. Will post it on the wiki and a URL here as soon as its done.
Why can't mock be used?
-sv
As you should well be aware :)
There are many hidden build requirements in the FC3 / RHEL4 package set. So, a technology like mock will not (at lease easily) properly build all packages for that group of packages.
The upstream team is working hard to address those issues and it should not be the case with newer distros. They will (supposedly) properly call out all build requirements.
If all the packages properly called out all their "build requires", then using a system like mock would work (that is, using a system that creates a chroot containing a core set of packages and all the "build requires" of the package to be built).
Currently, the CentOS build team uses a predefined build host to build packages. That build host is a controlled machine that has the latest version of the arch in question and no other packages.
those buildreqs are being fixed, in core, for fc6 - which means they should trickle into rhel5. I wasn't talking about using mock for current builds - just for future ones.
-sv
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:47 AM, seth vidal wrote:
Currently, the CentOS build team uses a predefined build host to build packages. That build host is a controlled machine that has the latest version of the arch in question and no other packages.
those buildreqs are being fixed, in core, for fc6 - which means they should trickle into rhel5. I wasn't talking about using mock for current builds - just for future ones.
To illustrate what I meant by "populating", let me point out the technical detail in FC6 that there are *still* missing dependencies like Requires: gcc, make
These of course are no-brainers that are supplied by the choice of the packages that are always installed.
So the issue is really that mock as currently used in FC6 has fewer packages in base, thereby exposing more missing build dependencies than are present in FC3/RHEL4.
hth
73 de Jeff
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:08 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
To illustrate what I meant by "populating", let me point out the technical detail in FC6 that there are *still* missing dependencies like Requires: gcc, make
These of course are no-brainers that are supplied by the choice of the packages that are always installed.
So the issue is really that mock as currently used in FC6 has fewer packages in base, thereby exposing more missing build dependencies than are present in FC3/RHEL4.
This is why I said "FUTURE RELEASES".
Fedora Core Development/6 is being built (ultimately) by mock. Which means the packaging requirements and the minimum buildroot has been taken care of.
Fedora has spent the last few weeks tracking down missing buildreqs in packages in core so as to make the whole system buildable using mock.
-sv
On Jun 26, 2006, at 8:19 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 08:08 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
To illustrate what I meant by "populating", let me point out the technical detail in FC6 that there are *still* missing dependencies like Requires: gcc, make
These of course are no-brainers that are supplied by the choice of the packages that are always installed.
So the issue is really that mock as currently used in FC6 has fewer packages in base, thereby exposing more missing build dependencies than are present in FC3/RHEL4.
This is why I said "FUTURE RELEASES".
I heard you the first time.
Fedora Core Development/6 is being built (ultimately) by mock. Which means the packaging requirements and the minimum buildroot has been taken care of.
Fedora has spent the last few weeks tracking down missing buildreqs in packages in core so as to make the whole system buildable using mock.
mock with an "everything" rather than a "FC6 minimal" buildroot would surely work today.
And the issue is what packages are implicitly in the base set, not how many build dependencies are missing.
Still, a manifest to be installed on single-arch build systems is dirt simple to maintain. For a RHEL derived distro, the issue of updating to the latest available as soon as possible simply doesn't matter as much as it does for FC6 development.
73 de Jeff
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 07:28 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:09 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
David Hrbáč wrote:
Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
We should try and get a proper buildsystem on there, so that people can request builds and get the built pkgs online somewhere ( dev.centos.org would be a good choice, i think )
Since most of the guys have local machines to test + do -devel stuff on, a single buildbox of this nature would be great.
Well, are we going to use Mock? Last few weeks I've been playing with Mock on Centos, and it works pretty fine.
no. We dont / cant use Mock or any such builder for the distro. I am doing some docs + a sort of HOWTO for people to use the system that we have in place. Will post it on the wiki and a URL here as soon as its done.
Why can't mock be used?
-sv
As you should well be aware :)
There are many hidden build requirements in the FC3 / RHEL4 package set. So, a technology like mock will not (at lease easily) properly build all packages for that group of packages.
While there may be many missing build dependencies, the issues of building a package, updating the build system to the latest available, and populating a build root are different.
I'm quite sure that mock can help with 1) and 2), and populating a build root can be done by increasing the packages in the base system to cover missing dependencies.
The upstream team is working hard to address those issues and it should not be the case with newer distros. They will (supposedly) properly call out all build requirements.
If all the packages properly called out all their "build requires", then using a system like mock would work (that is, using a system that creates a chroot containing a core set of packages and all the "build requires" of the package to be built).
Currently, the CentOS build team uses a predefined build host to build packages. That build host is a controlled machine that has the latest version of the arch in question and no other packages.
Everything installed on a single arch build server works too, and is easy to maintain.
73 de Jeff
Jeff Johnson napsal(a):
While there may be many missing build dependencies, the issues of building a package, updating the build system to the latest available, and populating a build root are different.
I'm quite sure that mock can help with 1) and 2), and populating a build root can be done by increasing the packages in the base system to cover missing dependencies.
That's why I'm pointing to Mock. We are able to find missing dependencies, files, srpms, and etc with Mock easily. This part of rpms QA will be covered. We know, many srpms are not complete, one to point is iptables-devel. David Hrbac
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have a very nice donation coming from Sun wrt SPARC .. it is a T2000 machine (quite an impressive machine actually ... 32GB RAM, 8 Core 1.2GHZ processor). The server should be here by the middle of next week ... and I will be able to see if I can compile normal SPARC packages as well as new Niagara packages on it.
Sun has been very nice to CentOS ... I would like to thank them once again for an unbelievable hardware donation.
Yes, very nice donation.
-
"Ing. Ernesto Pérez Estévez" -
Anthony Brooks -
Daniel de Kok -
David Hrbáč -
Feizhou -
Jeff Johnson -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Kevan Benson -
Ralph Angenendt -
seth vidal