Hi,
(Posting on this list instead of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I expect CentOS developers to be familiar with the problem I'm running into.)
I am trying to build the RHEL 6 sources on top of RHEL 6 beta on an AMD x86_64. I thought I start by updating glibc to the current version before continuing with building gcc. The build of gcc requires both x86_64 and i686 versions of glibc to be available. So I built the x86_64 version with a plain rpmbuild. For the i686 I used mock.
Now when I try to update both glibc's I get conflicts between the configuration and documentation files of both rpms. That issue does not exist with the original rpms, I can install both versions without running into conflicts.
Is there a way around this conflict without forcing the upgrade? How come the original rpms don't have this conflict? Is it just a matter of the dates on those files being different, and if so, how would I build the rpms for both archs in one run so the dates do not conflict?
Any thoughts, pointers and elaboration on the subject is welcome.
Regards, Leonard.
Hi,
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 23:57 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
So I built the x86_64 version with a plain rpmbuild. For the i686 I used mock.
On the base system I did forget to install redhat-rpm-config. Even though this will not make the build fail it does result in a much bigger glibc-2.12-1.7.el6.x86_64.rpm as compared to the original glibc-2.12-1.4.el6.x86_64.rpm, even though almost all of the files inside are identical in size. I suppose the difference in file size is caused by the lack of brp-compress and the invocation of it after the build.
Since the macros file is missing too %_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8 is not set when building on the base system. This option sets the FILEDIGEST checksum to use SHA-256 instead of MD5. Could this be the cause for rpm not to consider the config and document files from the x86_64 and i686 glibc rpms to be identical?
Regards, Leonard.
Hi Leonard,
Had a few issues building x86_64 gcc from upstream rhel6 sources also. I was building using a beta2 workstation install. I was able to build them adding the official i386 beta2 repo, pulling deps with yum-builddep and building with rpmbuild. I've shared them in case you are interested:
http://mirror.frameos.org/frameos/6/core/x86_64/Packages/
Hope that helps.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Leonard den Ottolander < leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 23:57 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
So I built the x86_64 version with a plain rpmbuild. For the i686 I used mock.
On the base system I did forget to install redhat-rpm-config. Even though this will not make the build fail it does result in a much bigger glibc-2.12-1.7.el6.x86_64.rpm as compared to the original glibc-2.12-1.4.el6.x86_64.rpm, even though almost all of the files inside are identical in size. I suppose the difference in file size is caused by the lack of brp-compress and the invocation of it after the build.
Since the macros file is missing too %_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8 is not set when building on the base system. This option sets the FILEDIGEST checksum to use SHA-256 instead of MD5. Could this be the cause for rpm not to consider the config and document files from the x86_64 and i686 glibc rpms to be identical?
Regards, Leonard.
-- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hello Sergio,
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 10:23 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
Had a few issues building x86_64 gcc from upstream rhel6 sources also. I was building using a beta2 workstation install.
I've shared them in case you are interested:
What I'm doing is a fun build, so thanks for the offer but I will continue building this system by myself.
Building both glibc's in a mock root (with redhat-rpm-config) installed resulted in two rpms that did not conflict with one another, so I could continue building gcc in the updated mock root. The x86_64 version compiled fine so far, going to start the i686 build in a minute. I suppose my guess that the difference in check summing in the original builds was the cause of my issue was right. At least it had something to do with the macro setup as the absence of redhat-rpm-config was the only difference in both build environments.
Regards, Leonard.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Leonard den Ottolander < leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
Hello Sergio,
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 10:23 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
Had a few issues building x86_64 gcc from upstream rhel6 sources also. I was building using a beta2 workstation install.
I've shared them in case you are interested:
What I'm doing is a fun build, so thanks for the offer but I will continue building this system by myself.
Building both glibc's in a mock root (with redhat-rpm-config) installed resulted in two rpms that did not conflict with one another, so I could continue building gcc in the updated mock root. The x86_64 version compiled fine so far, going to start the i686 build in a minute. I suppose my guess that the difference in check summing in the original builds was the cause of my issue was right. At least it had something to do with the macro setup as the absence of redhat-rpm-config was the only difference in both build environments.
Great, let us know how it goes please. I'm particularly interested in the result.
If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks for sharing.
Regards, Leonard.
-- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hello Sergio,
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 12:50 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm using the epel-6-x86_64 and epel-6-i386 configs from the rebuilt Fedora 14 1.1.6-1 srpm - you need pigz from Fedora too -, enabling the beta and beta-optional repos. (Some of the devel packages are only available in beta-optional.) To this I added a local repo "updates" (using a file:// baseurl) - I commented out the default "updates" repo to avoid naming conflicts but you could use a different name instead - to which I copy the resulting rpms. This way the build roots automatically get updated with the fresh rpms after an invocation of $ creatrepo . in the repo directory and a subsequent mock rebuild.
Since binutils didn't need an update going from 6beta to 6 I currently only have the mock roots patched with the glibc-2.12-1.7.el6 and related rpms. Next I will be adding the gcc-4.4.4-13.el6 and related rpms so subsequent packages will be build with the new compiler.
Regards, Leonard.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Leonard den Ottolander < leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
Hello Sergio,
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 12:50 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm using the epel-6-x86_64 and epel-6-i386 configs from the rebuilt Fedora 14 1.1.6-1 srpm - you need pigz from Fedora too -, enabling the beta and beta-optional repos. (Some of the devel packages are only available in beta-optional.) To this I added a local repo "updates" (using a file:// baseurl) - I commented out the default "updates" repo to avoid naming conflicts but you could use a different name instead - to which I copy the resulting rpms. This way the build roots automatically get updated with the fresh rpms after an invocation of $ creatrepo . in the repo directory and a subsequent mock rebuild.
Since binutils didn't need an update going from 6beta to 6 I currently only have the mock roots patched with the glibc-2.12-1.7.el6 and related rpms. Next I will be adding the gcc-4.4.4-13.el6 and related rpms so subsequent packages will be build with the new compiler.
Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try.
Regards.
Regards, Leonard.
-- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Leonard den Ottolander < leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
Hello Sergio,
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 12:50 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm using the epel-6-x86_64 and epel-6-i386 configs from the rebuilt Fedora 14 1.1.6-1 srpm - you need pigz from Fedora too -, enabling the beta and beta-optional repos. (Some of the devel packages are only available in beta-optional.) To this I added a local repo "updates" (using a file:// baseurl) - I commented out the default "updates" repo to avoid naming conflicts but you could use a different name instead - to which I copy the resulting rpms. This way the build roots automatically get updated with the fresh rpms after an invocation of $ creatrepo . in the repo directory and a subsequent mock rebuild.
Since binutils didn't need an update going from 6beta to 6 I currently only have the mock roots patched with the glibc-2.12-1.7.el6 and related rpms. Next I will be adding the gcc-4.4.4-13.el6 and related rpms so subsequent packages will be build with the new compiler.
Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try.
RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those packages can be found at:
Kind regards,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a
try.
RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those packages can be found at:
http://packages.sw.be/mock/
Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?
Thanks.
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 11/25/2010 04:23 PM, Sergio Rubio wrote:
> I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try. http://packages.sw.be/mock/Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages? Thanks.
Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant list please.
Also, be considerate when you are posting to the mailing list, trim your posts down to whats relevant
- KB
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/25/2010 04:23 PM, Sergio Rubio wrote:
> I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try. http://packages.sw.be/mock/Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages? Thanks.
Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant list please.
I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was about CentOS, wasn't it ?
On 25/11/2010 19:05, Dag Wieers wrote:
Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant list please.
I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was about CentOS, wasn't it ?
This is the centos-devel list, its focused around development issues in and around centos. This thread has nothing to do with that.
- KB
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/11/2010 19:05, Dag Wieers wrote:
Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant list please.
I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was about CentOS, wasn't it ?
This is the centos-devel list, its focused around development issues in and around centos. This thread has nothing to do with that.
The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package, which incidentally is what CentOS is doing. And the C in CentOS stands for community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with that.
Which I guess is your right.
On 25/11/2010 21:54, Dag Wieers wrote:
The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package,
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
which incidentally is what CentOS is doing.
so should we all move to the lkml since that's effectively what it all boils down to, isn't it ?
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
And the C in CentOS stands for community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with that.
I know you like to beat that drum often, but then I guess thats your right too.
- KB
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/11/2010 21:54, Dag Wieers wrote:
The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package,
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
It's the closest there is.
which incidentally is what CentOS is doing.
so should we all move to the lkml since that's effectively what it all boils down to, isn't it ?
No, except if you think in black-and-white.
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
And the C in CentOS stands for community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with that.
I know you like to beat that drum often, but then I guess thats your right too.
Only why I think you're unreasonable. It is in fact very similar to when you objected when I announced the availability of kmod packages for eg. CentOS. That was considered off-topic as well.
Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what doesn't trigger you ?
On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
It's the closest there is.
that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked at this the rest of this thread have you ?
Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what doesn't trigger you ?
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
- KB
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
It's the closest there is.
that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one* connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this* list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive hogwash, and it could have just as easily been stated at the very beginning when OP stated very openly, "(Posting on this list instead of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I expect CentOS developers to be familiar with the problem I'm running into.)".
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
Ah yes, the Royal "We". FWIW, I missed that "bit" also - I see no such statement in this thread.
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked at this the rest of this thread have you ?
"Guessing" as to what each, or any, list member has read, or not read, is both wrong and unwelcome.
Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what doesn't trigger you ?
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
The latter comment may fit in at alt.therapy.centos, but here it sounds judgemental and controlling. 1. Delete the bothersome e-mail. 2. Move on.
That said, I segue into a "Thank you". :-) No really, I mean it. I'm nearing the end of our Thanksgiving holiday here in the US, and I am again thinking of the time and effort of so many people that makes CentOS what it is - sincerely, "Thank You" to everyone. Just please, don't contribute *emotional* time and effort.....
jerry
On 11/25/2010 07:04 PM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singhmail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
It's the closest there is.
that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one* connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this* list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive
As an observer who has been entirely guilty of being poisonly dramatic on other fedora-lists, but who has hopefully matured, I have to agree with this. On the other hand I also have to say that Dag's responses were equivalently thoughtless in regard to actually building up the community, instead of just inciting KS to dig deeper into his position.
On the other other hand, that doesn't mean I think those 'thoughtless' comments were wrong. I.e. if KS really does feel that strongly, moderation is the real answer that would facilitate a community without these sorts of non-productive, community-poisoning heal-digging-in drama fests.
$0.02...
-dmc
hogwash, and it could have just as easily been stated at the very beginning when OP stated very openly, "(Posting on this list instead of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I expect CentOS developers to be familiar with the problem I'm running into.)".
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
Ah yes, the Royal "We". FWIW, I missed that "bit" also - I see no such statement in this thread.
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked at this the rest of this thread have you ?
"Guessing" as to what each, or any, list member has read, or not read, is both wrong and unwelcome.
Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what doesn't trigger you ?
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
The latter comment may fit in at alt.therapy.centos, but here it sounds judgemental and controlling.
- Delete the bothersome e-mail.
- Move on.
That said, I segue into a "Thank you". :-) No really, I mean it. I'm nearing the end of our Thanksgiving holiday here in the US, and I am again thinking of the time and effort of so many people that makes CentOS what it is - sincerely, "Thank You" to everyone. Just please, don't contribute *emotional* time and effort.....
jerry _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Le 26/11/10 04:02, Douglas McClendon a écrit :
On 11/25/2010 07:04 PM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singhmail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
It's the closest there is.
that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one* connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this* list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive
As an observer who has been entirely guilty of being poisonly dramatic on other fedora-lists, but who has hopefully matured, I have to agree with this. On the other hand I also have to say that Dag's responses were equivalently thoughtless in regard to actually building up the community, instead of just inciting KS to dig deeper into his position.
On the other other hand, that doesn't mean I think those 'thoughtless' comments were wrong. I.e. if KS really does feel that strongly, moderation is the real answer that would facilitate a community without these sorts of non-productive, community-poisoning heal-digging-in drama fests.
$0.02...
-dmc
Each Flag war is shamefull for the protagonists and hurts all the community. I'd rather read some less appropriated topics than I can quickly bypass if I don't feel concerned. Technical debates are welcome, Personal conflicts are unpolite. Centos merits better.
JML
On 11/26/2010 10:16 AM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
quickly bypass if I don't feel concerned. Technical debates are welcome,
And you think the idea of 'relevant technical debate' is optional ?
Quite aware of the fact that I am being borderline pedantic here, but its critical we keep the important things in mind. If being extremist to some level is needed to highlight that, then so be it.
- KB
On 11/26/2010 01:04 AM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
In my opinion, it's both right and welcome.
Thats fine, refer back to the conversation on the centos list about having an overflow / things that might or might not be related etc list. If you want to express opinion on what and how something like that might run, post comments there.
This list, is still the centos-devel list, its about development and admin issues within the centos project. So lets try and think about that and keep it to that.
- KB
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
This list, is still the centos-devel list, its about development and admin issues within the centos project. So lets try and think about that and keep it to that.
So this thread would be ok, in the centos users list then.
The topic of this thread was originally "development" but not of centos. So it's just users communicating with each other and has little to do with the development of centos itself.
So IMO let's move this thread over there if it needs to continue at all.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we didn't have any such problem.
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked at this the rest of this thread have you ?
I actually did, in fact I have read all the emails and usually refrain from replying when I have an opinion (given my past).
Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what doesn't trigger you ?
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
I guess that's matter of opinion. The availability of recent mock packages for CentOS fits the centos-devel bill, just as the availability of kmod-packages for CentOS belongs on the general centos mailinglist.
Why you feel the urge to abort threads when they become interesting is food for speculation, though. (Without having to bring up anyone's mental state)
On 11/26/2010 07:38 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I actually did, in fact I have read all the emails and usually refrain from replying when I have an opinion (given my past).
I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is incorrect.
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
I guess that's matter of opinion. The availability of recent mock packages for CentOS fits the centos-devel bill, just as the availability of kmod-packages for CentOS belongs on the general centos mailinglist.
Thats just bollocks. If every project was to announce every package in the main list, were looking at thousands of announcements there. You were repremanded after repeated spamming, not when you announced the efforts. And I am confident that we have been consistent with that policy over the years. Quite a few people have announced efforts and points of interest, its only when they digress into spamming have people objected.
- KB
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/26/2010 07:38 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
I actually did, in fact I have read all the emails and usually refrain from replying when I have an opinion (given my past).
I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is incorrect.
As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
I guess that's matter of opinion. The availability of recent mock packages for CentOS fits the centos-devel bill, just as the availability of kmod-packages for CentOS belongs on the general centos mailinglist.
Thats just bollocks. If every project was to announce every package in the main list, were looking at thousands of announcements there. You were repremanded after repeated spamming, not when you announced the efforts. And I am confident that we have been consistent with that policy over the years. Quite a few people have announced efforts and points of interest, its only when they digress into spamming have people objected.
Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to disinform.
I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt. the build process or alternatives.
Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.
On 11/26/2010 01:11 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is incorrect.
As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.
Being pedantic does not imply I am wrong. Your basis for the argument is flawed, and the lengths you are going to in order to circumvent that issue is odd.
Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to disinform.
So you dont think its worth sticking with the same policy for you as it does for everyone else ? I'm not disinforming about anything but clearing out the crazy FUD you are trying to create here.
I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt. the build process or alternatives.
FUD... You clearly don't get it, why not stop trying and stop giving yourself all the grief ?
Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.
I am also fairly sure that the 'internet' does not imply freedom to do as you want, when you want, where you want - and suite yourself in anyway you like with no response from anyone. Its the 'where' bit that you need to go think about a bit.
- KB
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/26/2010 01:11 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
I suggest you read it again, because your 'which basicly means' is incorrect.
As you stated yourself, you are being pedantic. And I think you are deliberately making this thread more worse than it should be.
Being pedantic does not imply I am wrong. Your basis for the argument is flawed, and the lengths you are going to in order to circumvent that issue is odd.
Huh, I stated that we have mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6, which definitely is useful for a centos-devel list.
Explain to me how sending two mails to find users to test, is "repeated spamming" ? And while you know better, you can't resist the urge to disinform.
So you dont think its worth sticking with the same policy for you as it does for everyone else ? I'm not disinforming about anything but clearing out the crazy FUD you are trying to create here.
No, you said I was spamming, which I was not. And I fail to see how informing about mock packages is FUD.
I do think the problem is the content, as much as you don't like me mentioning we have alternative kmod-drbd packages (that actualy get updated frequently), you don't like others to discuss transparancy wrt. the build process or alternatives.
FUD... You clearly don't get it, why not stop trying and stop giving yourself all the grief ?
What grief ?
Well, this is the Internet, get used to it.
I am also fairly sure that the 'internet' does not imply freedom to do as you want, when you want, where you want - and suite yourself in anyway you like with no response from anyone. Its the 'where' bit that you need to go think about a bit.
I think you are turning things around, I am not trying to shut a discussion down. I didn't do anything wrong by posting there are recent mock packages available.
Spam and FUD, what's next...
Am 26.11.10 17:27, schrieb Dag Wieers:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:
[plus several more levels of this]
Can we make a drinking game out of that at FOSDEM? Or you two boxing it out?
I know both of you, and I know that you really want to do the same: Further open distributions and packages. I don't want to sound harsh, but you two really should talk about that in person and stop harassing each other on public mailing lists - that doesn't go well for both of you. I know there are differences, but you somehow should overcome this.
One of you less pedantic, one of you more so.
But please, try to stop being childish. Rebuilding RHEL into CentOS is a very clear task. Offering packages optional to that is another very clear task. And both are needed and both need to be discussed. Maybe even on one list - and maybe it is this list.
But getting at each others throats does not help both tasks.
In my (really) not so humble opinion. I know both of you have a different view on how things could or should be done, but I see no reason to do that the way you are doing it here at the moment.
Ralph
Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only on this list but plenty of other places as well.
Hello Karanbir Singh,
you should make sure to grow the CentOS development to a bigger group and make it more stable. AKAIK this is the goal of this list and there should be plenty of work to distribute and get done.
No fights please, CentOS has such a wonderful source base to extend upon...
best regards,
Florian La Roche
Just an observation:
From looking at http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel there is now way I can tell what is suppose to be discussed on this mailinglist. It might be usefull to add that information to make it more clear as to what fits the mailinglist.
Hugo.
On 11/26/2010 01:08 PM, Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
From looking at http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel there is now way I can tell what is suppose to be discussed on this mailinglist. It might be usefull to add that information to make it more clear as to what fits the mailinglist.
True. There is some info at http://wiki.centos.org/GettingHelp/ListInfo but I guess we can do a better job of clearing out the list role in the mailman page.
If noone else gets to it before me, I'll have a go at night today.
Thanks
- KB
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a
try.
RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those packages can be found at:
http://packages.sw.be/mock/Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?
I don't know. It's trivial to find out, isn't ?
-
Dag Wieers -
Douglas McClendon -
Florian La Roche -
Hugo van der Kooij -
Jean-Marc Liger -
Jerry Amundson -
Karanbir Singh -
Leonard den Ottolander -
Mike Fedyk -
Ralph Angenendt -
Sergio Rubio