Hi,
I thought I'd start an article on my personal blog on the various options for newer PHP (in particular), python, ruby etc options in CentOS - particularly given some of the base packages in EL6 have now passed EOL upstream and consequently some applications (eg OwnCloud) now have minimal dependencies greater than in base.
What I found on initial looks to SCL was at best confusing and in areas outright misleading, with help needed from Dominic in #centos-devel to work through the present SCL situation.
Doing a general Google search (or the @scl keyword in #centos) will take someone to here: https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/SCL
This refers to an old centos-release-SCL package which is still in the repos and would direct the user to unmaintained old versions.
The correct package is actually centos-release-scl ... yes just the case needs to change.
The documentation for centos-release-scl stuff (ie the CentOS SCL SIG stuff) is pretty much nonexistent for a user needing a newer version of a package. These pages are very CentOS developer focused and not really useful for the end user:
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo/CollectionsList
Then once the right package is installed the user can see there is php54, php55 and rh-php56 packages but it's not clear why the difference in the naming and there's nothing that highlights to someone that if they want to use php55 or rh-php56 they'll need to handle a migration to rh-httpd24 as well.
I'd suggest the first step is to have centos-release-scl obsolete centos-release-SCL so that users are not left on an unmaintained repository.
Then as I gather data for my article I'd really like to flesh out and improve the 'user facing' SCL wiki page.
Thoughts on this?
James
On 05/23/2016 10:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd start an article on my personal blog on the various options for newer PHP (in particular), python, ruby etc options in CentOS - particularly given some of the base packages in EL6 have now passed EOL upstream and consequently some applications (eg OwnCloud) now have minimal dependencies greater than in base.
What I found on initial looks to SCL was at best confusing and in areas outright misleading, with help needed from Dominic in #centos-devel to work through the present SCL situation.
Doing a general Google search (or the @scl keyword in #centos) will take someone to here: https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/SCL
This refers to an old centos-release-SCL package which is still in the repos and would direct the user to unmaintained old versions.
The correct package is actually centos-release-scl ... yes just the case needs to change.
We will be removing the old release file when we move to 6.8. I will also put a forward in the wiki so that <name>-SCL forwards to <name>-scl
The documentation for centos-release-scl stuff (ie the CentOS SCL SIG stuff) is pretty much nonexistent for a user needing a newer version of a package. These pages are very CentOS developer focused and not really useful for the end user:
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo/CollectionsList
Then once the right package is installed the user can see there is php54, php55 and rh-php56 packages but it's not clear why the difference in the naming and there's nothing that highlights to someone that if they want to use php55 or rh-php56 they'll need to handle a migration to rh-httpd24 as well.
I'd suggest the first step is to have centos-release-scl obsolete centos-release-SCL so that users are not left on an unmaintained repository.
Then as I gather data for my article I'd really like to flesh out and improve the 'user facing' SCL wiki page.
Thoughts on this?
James
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 05/23/2016 10:38 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd start an article on my personal blog on the various options for newer PHP (in particular), python, ruby etc options in CentOS - particularly given some of the base packages in EL6 have now passed EOL upstream and consequently some applications (eg OwnCloud) now have minimal dependencies greater than in base.
What I found on initial looks to SCL was at best confusing and in areas outright misleading, with help needed from Dominic in #centos-devel to work through the present SCL situation.
Doing a general Google search (or the @scl keyword in #centos) will take someone to here: https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/SCL
This refers to an old centos-release-SCL package which is still in the repos and would direct the user to unmaintained old versions.
The correct package is actually centos-release-scl ... yes just the case needs to change.
The documentation for centos-release-scl stuff (ie the CentOS SCL SIG stuff) is pretty much nonexistent for a user needing a newer version of a package. These pages are very CentOS developer focused and not really useful for the end user:
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo/CollectionsList
Then once the right package is installed the user can see there is php54, php55 and rh-php56 packages but it's not clear why the difference in the naming and there's nothing that highlights to someone that if they want to use php55 or rh-php56 they'll need to handle a migration to rh-httpd24 as well.
I'd suggest the first step is to have centos-release-scl obsolete centos-release-SCL so that users are not left on an unmaintained repository.
Then as I gather data for my article I'd really like to flesh out and improve the 'user facing' SCL wiki page.
Thoughts on this?
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 .. it does not seem there is any documentation on how to use the new system.
James, when you have all the things figured out, we can give you access to change that WIKI page and also have it be updateable by the people in the SCLo SIG.
On 23 May 2016 17:13, "Johnny Hughes" johnny@centos.org wrote:
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 ..
Good to know, but I still think it is worthwhile adding the obsoletes so that SCL users who may not realise the repo changed get transparently migrated to the supported solution.
it does not seem there is any documentation on how to use the new system.
I did wonder if I missed a page upon reading your previous message!
James, when you have all the things figured out, we can give you access to change that WIKI page and also have it be updateable by the people in the SCLo SIG.
That'd be useful. I'm looking to get this sorted over the next couple of weeks as a rough timeline.
On 23/05/16 20:28, James Hogarth wrote:
On 23 May 2016 17:13, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 ..
Good to know, but I still think it is worthwhile adding the obsoletes so that SCL users who may not realise the repo changed get transparently migrated to the supported solution.
I agree that this would be a good idea, and probably the original intention.
If it's OK with the CentOS developers to obsolete their package then you can send a PR to https://github.com/sclorg-distgit/centos-release-sclo/tree/el6 (the 'el6' branch) to add Obsoletes/Provides. The EVR of the package should already be higher in preparation.
it does not seem there is any documentation on how to use the new system.
I did wonder if I missed a page upon reading your previous message!
Indeed, the /SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo page is mostly administrative with information for members of the SIG, not users. /SpecialInterestGroup/SCLo/CollectionsList is the closest we have.
Thanks for your help!
On 05/24/2016 02:20 AM, Dominic Cleal wrote:
On 23/05/16 20:28, James Hogarth wrote:
On 23 May 2016 17:13, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 ..
Good to know, but I still think it is worthwhile adding the obsoletes so that SCL users who may not realise the repo changed get transparently migrated to the supported solution.
I agree that this would be a good idea, and probably the original intention.
If it's OK with the CentOS developers to obsolete their package then you can send a PR to https://github.com/sclorg-distgit/centos-release-sclo/tree/el6 (the 'el6' branch) to add Obsoletes/Provides. The EVR of the package should already be higher in preparation.
Yes, obsoleting the package is fine. I am going to pull both that package and that original SCL directory/repo when we push the 6.8 tree in the next couple of days.
<snip>
Am 23.05.2016 um 21:28 schrieb James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com:
On 23 May 2016 17:13, "Johnny Hughes" johnny@centos.org wrote:
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 ..
Good to know, but I still think it is worthwhile adding the obsoletes so that SCL users who may not realise the repo changed get transparently migrated to the supported solution.
this was already discussed here:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2016-January/014221.html
and Honza concluded with "it still seems something we should change."
-- LF
On 24 May 2016 12:10, "Leon Fauster" leonfauster@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 23.05.2016 um 21:28 schrieb James Hogarth james.hogarth@gmail.com:
On 23 May 2016 17:13, "Johnny Hughes" johnny@centos.org wrote:
I take that back .. the file will go away when we move to 6.8 ..
Good to know, but I still think it is worthwhile adding the obsoletes
so that SCL users who may not realise the repo changed get transparently migrated to the supported solution.
this was already discussed here:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2016-January/014221.html
and Honza concluded with "it still seems something we should change."
Well good job we're doing it now then!
-
Dominic Cleal -
James Hogarth -
Johnny Hughes -
Leon Fauster