As there seems to be a desire for official CentOS CS & GFS packages, we should decide how these are going to be stored on the mirror.
The simple method is probably directories under {3,4} called {CS,GFS}. (ie. new directories alongside extras, centosplus etc).
Can these directories easily be shared out to developers? I probably need a new key to sign my packages, unless someone with the 3 key wants to resign them after I sign then with the 2 key.
Given the low volume of updates in these trees, it might be easier if someone with 3 access wants to manually take my packages and put them into the 3 tree.
Also, how does stuff get into the vault? Is this automatic.
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:27 +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
As there seems to be a desire for official CentOS CS & GFS packages, we should decide how these are going to be stored on the mirror.
The simple method is probably directories under {3,4} called {CS,GFS}. (ie. new directories alongside extras, centosplus etc).
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
Can these directories easily be shared out to developers? I probably need a new key to sign my packages, unless someone with the 3 key wants to resign them after I sign then with the 2 key.
I don't have a 3 key ... :)
Given the low volume of updates in these trees, it might be easier if someone with 3 access wants to manually take my packages and put them into the 3 tree.
Also, how does stuff get into the vault? Is this automatic.
I move it to the centos-store in /home on centosa (master) when we kill a tree, I can setup a centos-2 directory there and give you access if you want ... or I can mv files if you give me a list. Either way works for me.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
John.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
cheers,
Tru
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
cheers,
Tru
Tru,
We probably won't be able to compare these. I know I don't have a subscription available for the original RHGFS or RHCS RPMS for comparison.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
cheers,
Tru
OK, Combined makes since to me too .. looks like agreement on "csgfs" as semi RedHat like.
I can go ahead and do a csgfs directory and put all the docs in there (for 3 and 4) if everyone agrees
Lance ... what do you think?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tru Huynh wrote:
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
Why do you want to? I'm not aware of any such comparisons with all the other RHEL binaries.
Are CentOS binaries not also "genuine"?
--- Charlie
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 10:58 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tru Huynh wrote:
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
Why do you want to? I'm not aware of any such comparisons with all the other RHEL binaries.
Are CentOS binaries not also "genuine"?
to make sure the buildreqs were satisfied and the build environments were sane.
-sv
On Thu, July 21, 2005 10:02 am, seth vidal said:
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 10:58 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Tru Huynh wrote:
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
Why do you want to? I'm not aware of any such comparisons with all the other RHEL binaries.
Are CentOS binaries not also "genuine"?
to make sure the buildreqs were satisfied and the build environments were sane.
-sv
Charlie,
If you build a package with certian things installed, it links to certian programs, if you build it with more or less things installed than RH did, it can have extra (or not enough) links.
They are both "genuine" and they both work ... but they are different. We don't want to be different, so we will adjust the build environemnt and build it again in these cases after a comparison.
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The packages are currently signed with the CentOS-2 key (on a CentOS-2) box which for some reason makes rpm -K on a CentOS-3 box unhappy. If they are not suitable I can make some changes.
These have not been compared in any way to the Red Hat shipped versions. I have a feeling that Red Hat don't ship binaries, but perhaps they just kept it hushed. I don't know anyone who uses the RH GFS.
I have also included perl-Net-SSLeay from Dag's EL3 repo. This is required for some of the fencing scripts like iLO.
John.
Tru Huynh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
cheers,
Tru
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
--- Charlie
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:02 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
It's a directory structure. To expect anything beyond directories is wrong.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:02 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
It's a directory structure. To expect anything beyond directories is wrong.
I guess you didn't take a look. The tarball already does contain files, but no directories which will obviously contain source RPMs. My question stands.
--- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
Yes. The SRPMS can be found here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/RHCS/i386/SRPMS/ ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/RHGFS/i386/SRPMS/ ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3AS/en/RHCS/SRPMS/ ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3AS/en/RHGFS/SRPMS/
John.
Charlie _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
Yes. The SRPMS can be found here:
//ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/RHCS/i386/SRPMS/
[etc]
My understanding is that RedHat's offering of SRPM is not sufficient for CentOS to distribute binaries. So SRPM should be part of the CentOS directory treee.
You mentioned GFS etc for CentOS 4. Do these same SRPMS compile fine on CentOS 4 (I see there's FC4 variants available if not)? Is anyone currently building them on CentOS 4? If not, I'll try to have a go tomorrow.
--- Charlie
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 23:35 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, John Newbigin wrote:
OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The tarball and directory tree doesn't appear to contain source RPMs. Is that intentional?
Yes. The SRPMS can be found here:
//ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/RHCS/i386/SRPMS/
[etc]
My understanding is that RedHat's offering of SRPM is not sufficient for CentOS to distribute binaries. So SRPM should be part of the CentOS directory treee.
You mentioned GFS etc for CentOS 4. Do these same SRPMS compile fine on CentOS 4 (I see there's FC4 variants available if not)? Is anyone currently building them on CentOS 4? If not, I'll try to have a go tomorrow.
Charlie _______________________________________________
They do not work on CentOS-4 ... and we will include SRPMS in the final tree.
This is a devel list, the finished product will be announced to the main list when it is done.
We have built, and are testing, RHGFS 6.1 and RHCS4 as well (the version for RHEL 4 / CentOS-4)
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote:
They do not work on CentOS-4 ... and we will include SRPMS in the final tree.
Is there any reason they can't be there now?
This is a devel list, the finished product will be announced to the main list when it is done.
We have built, and are testing, RHGFS 6.1 and RHCS4 as well (the version for RHEL 4 / CentOS-4)
Since this is a devel list, could we not be invited to join the testing effort?
--- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote:
They do not work on CentOS-4 ... and we will include SRPMS in the final tree.
Is there any reason they can't be there now?
yes, because they are not done yet :)
While the code itself is release grade, allow us atleast the time to check that the rebuild works properly.
This is a devel list, the finished product will be announced to the main list when it is done.
We have built, and are testing, RHGFS 6.1 and RHCS4 as well (the version for RHEL 4 / CentOS-4)
Since this is a devel list, could we not be invited to join the testing effort?
Feel free to take a look : http://rpm.karan.org/el4/csgfs/
Dont be surprised if packages change.
( FYI: packages are not signed, and wont be till they are are release grade and show up on mirror.centos.org )
- K
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote:
They do not work on CentOS-4 ... and we will include SRPMS in the final tree.
Is there any reason they can't be there now?
yes, because they are not done yet :)
While the code itself is release grade, allow us atleast the time to check that the rebuild works properly.
What's the status of the Centos4 packages? I'm not trying to bother you guys, just curious.
Feel free to take a look : http://rpm.karan.org/el4/csgfs/
Dont be surprised if packages change.
Thanks, I'm going to try to install the packages this week.
--Ajay
John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
Sounds good to me.
- KB
-
Ajay Sharma -
Charlie Brady -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
John Newbigin -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
seth vidal -
Tru Huynh