What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
On 10/09/2019 12:10, victor mason wrote:
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
just want to clarify this scare mongering is unfounded - for content released, there are no pending updates, the CR repos were populated a while back.
regards
I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are precious few places where this is possible.
However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. Sorry CentOS.
But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me, to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait for CentOS.
Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work.
Jeff
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason vm2196@gmail.com wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on? _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Easy to put this all to bed if someone just updates folks on what the current status is. Can you just categorically state this is not related to the IBM acquisition and put an end to all these conspiracy theories?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jeffrey Layton laytonjb@gmail.com wrote:
I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are precious few places where this is possible.
However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. Sorry CentOS.
But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me, to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait for CentOS.
Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work.
Jeff
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason vm2196@gmail.com wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on? _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
hi Akshay,
I am going to guess your question is about CentOS Linux 8 and not 7 ( since all content for 7 is already posted ).
Since I've had a voice on this side, CentOS-4'ish timeframe, have tried to make sure we dont ship something that isnt good-enough( ie, fair quality, consumeable, deliverable, sustainable ). This has meant delays as we work through challenges. We -do- have a great community and QA team, and we've had awesome progress working through the bootstrap, as was visible and reported publicly. But we have not been able to close the last mile as fast as we would have liked, should not be taken as were not trying to.
Over the last few weeks the CentOS board, Core SIG and QA teams have been working flat out to get us to a good-enough point to release and move forward, its just taking time.
Apprecaite the vote of confidence. And this list will be the first ( well, maybe centos-mirror will! ) to know as we move forward.
w.r.t the IBM question, I cant answer for them. Your best bet is to reach out to the PR and Communication channels for IBM in your region etc, and ask them.
disclaimer: While I do work for Red Hat, my role as project lead for CentOS Project is removed from my dayjob and scope/role. My comments here are presented as my role in the CentOS project.
On 10/09/2019 13:08, Akshay Kumar wrote:
Easy to put this all to bed if someone just updates folks on what the current status is. Can you just categorically state this is not related to the IBM acquisition and put an end to all these conspiracy theories?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jeffrey Layton <laytonjb@gmail.com mailto:laytonjb@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are precious few places where this is possible. However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. Sorry CentOS. But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me, to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait for CentOS. Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work. Jeff On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason <vm2196@gmail.com <mailto:vm2196@gmail.com>> wrote: What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days? https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrator-Goes-AWOL The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence. It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up. Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
I think at least for me that's all I wanted to know. Personally I think it's even perfectly reasonable to skip 8 and go straight to 8.1. Just perhaps some updates along the way on what the status is would be nice. The updates page was great for that till it stopped updating ;-). Anyway, thanks for the update and all the hard work.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:57 PM Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org wrote:
hi Akshay,
I am going to guess your question is about CentOS Linux 8 and not 7 ( since all content for 7 is already posted ).
Since I've had a voice on this side, CentOS-4'ish timeframe, have tried to make sure we dont ship something that isnt good-enough( ie, fair quality, consumeable, deliverable, sustainable ). This has meant delays as we work through challenges. We -do- have a great community and QA team, and we've had awesome progress working through the bootstrap, as was visible and reported publicly. But we have not been able to close the last mile as fast as we would have liked, should not be taken as were not trying to.
Over the last few weeks the CentOS board, Core SIG and QA teams have been working flat out to get us to a good-enough point to release and move forward, its just taking time.
Apprecaite the vote of confidence. And this list will be the first ( well, maybe centos-mirror will! ) to know as we move forward.
w.r.t the IBM question, I cant answer for them. Your best bet is to reach out to the PR and Communication channels for IBM in your region etc, and ask them.
disclaimer: While I do work for Red Hat, my role as project lead for CentOS Project is removed from my dayjob and scope/role. My comments here are presented as my role in the CentOS project.
On 10/09/2019 13:08, Akshay Kumar wrote:
Easy to put this all to bed if someone just updates folks on what the current status is. Can you just categorically state this is not related to the IBM acquisition and put an end to all these conspiracy theories?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jeffrey Layton <laytonjb@gmail.com mailto:laytonjb@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are precious few places where this is possible. However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. SorryCentOS.
But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me, to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait for CentOS. Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work. Jeff On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason <vm2196@gmail.com <mailto:vm2196@gmail.com>> wrote: What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence. It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up. Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
I do not remember the last time I wrote to the mailing list, and I do not think there is something neferious going on, but TOTAL lack of ANY kind of info is very hard on CentOS users, me included.
It would be nice is someone wrote few sentences to say what are problems slowing down release, something like: "there are XX packages left to build properly so it will take us no less then YY days to release (There does not have to be obligation release day, saying it will take longer then YY days would be enough).
I wanted to post something to Facebook group but I am unable to find ANY kind of info outside Core/QA teams, so when people ask what is going on I can only stay silent or say "I have absolutely no idea"...
On 9/10/19 2:56 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi Akshay,
I am going to guess your question is about CentOS Linux 8 and not 7 ( since all content for 7 is already posted ).
Since I've had a voice on this side, CentOS-4'ish timeframe, have tried to make sure we dont ship something that isnt good-enough( ie, fair quality, consumeable, deliverable, sustainable ). This has meant delays as we work through challenges. We -do- have a great community and QA team, and we've had awesome progress working through the bootstrap, as was visible and reported publicly. But we have not been able to close the last mile as fast as we would have liked, should not be taken as were not trying to.
Over the last few weeks the CentOS board, Core SIG and QA teams have been working flat out to get us to a good-enough point to release and move forward, its just taking time.
Apprecaite the vote of confidence. And this list will be the first ( well, maybe centos-mirror will! ) to know as we move forward.
w.r.t the IBM question, I cant answer for them. Your best bet is to reach out to the PR and Communication channels for IBM in your region etc, and ask them.
disclaimer: While I do work for Red Hat, my role as project lead for CentOS Project is removed from my dayjob and scope/role. My comments here are presented as my role in the CentOS project.
On 10/09/2019 13:08, Akshay Kumar wrote:
Easy to put this all to bed if someone just updates folks on what the current status is. Can you just categorically state this is not related to the IBM acquisition and put an end to all these conspiracy theories?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Jeffrey Layton <laytonjb@gmail.com mailto:laytonjb@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been using CentOS for a long time and love it! Thanks for all of the hard work, long hours, and lack of sleep. Also thanks to the mailing list - lots of great questions and answers. This is a great place to even get general Linux questions answered. There are precious few places where this is possible. However, I have to admit that 4 months for CentOS is a bit longer than usual. I know that once it is out, everything will be fine. To be honest, 4 months is too long for my needs. I went ahead and bought RHEL 8.0. I hated spending money on it since it felt like I was betraying CentOS but I just couldn't wait any longer. Sorry CentOS. But one person pointed out to me that perhaps Red Hat, since it "owns" CentOS, may actually want to delay it to get people, like me, to buy RHEL. I think this is a little too conspiracy for me, but you have to admit that the longer it is held up, the greater the possibility people will buy RHEL. I'm in the HPC world so spending a bunch of money for RHEL for every node in the cluster is not likely to happen so CentOS has an advantage there. The HPC world will wait for CentOS. Thank you CentOS team and thanks for all of the hard work. Jeff On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:11 AM victor mason <vm2196@gmail.com <mailto:vm2196@gmail.com>> wrote: What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days? https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrator-Goes-AWOL The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence. It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up. Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi,
let me see if we can get an official statement of some sort together.
there is a lot more that goes into the distro part than just building a set of packages and over the fence, I suspect that part is being lost in the msgs somewhere.
regards
On 10/09/2019 14:48, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I do not remember the last time I wrote to the mailing list, and I do not think there is something neferious going on, but TOTAL lack of ANY kind of info is very hard on CentOS users, me included.
It would be nice is someone wrote few sentences to say what are problems slowing down release, something like: "there are XX packages left to build properly so it will take us no less then YY days to release (There does not have to be obligation release day, saying it will take longer then YY days would be enough).
I wanted to post something to Facebook group but I am unable to find ANY kind of info outside Core/QA teams, so when people ask what is going on I can only stay silent or say "I have absolutely no idea"...
On 9/10/19 4:40 PM, victor mason wrote:
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8%C2%A0was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
I'm not part of the CentOS team, but I did track down members of the core team at Flock to Fedora, about ~4 weeks ago, and got an abbreviated status update on CentOS 8, which I'll try and share. Back then the status page listed the Installer/QA/RC tasks as "Ongoing." Based on what I was told/understood, C8 was building, and they had it up and running on various test machines. The hangup at that point was automating the install process. I imagine automating that process is a prerequisite to further testing. As you can guess, not much work was being done at that moment because the core devs were all focused on shipping 7.7.
I offered to help and made some suggestions regarding a fix, based on my experience automating RHEL 8/Oracle 8 installs, but of course, I couldn't test those suggestions. If you look at Koji you'll see all the files are there, but access is blocked. From this point I'm only guessing, but about a week after I got that update, the status page was updated to its current state. I take that to mean their in the testing/packaging, preparing for release stage.
As for why it is taking so long... building RHEL 8 is dramatically different than any of the previous releases, in part because of the introduction of the BaseOS / AppStream concepts. There were also new challenges, like the introduction of build dependencies which are only used to compile the OS, but aren't released as part of the distro. As a result, getting C8 to build required re-engineering the build process and deploying new infrastructure (the mbox vs cbs). And that infrastructure didn't come ready made, it had to be created using tools that were originally designed for Fedora.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Any critical security updates would have already been released independently of 7.7. That said, 7.7 does have a number of bug fixes, and if your keen to get those, you can enable the CR repo. Johnny posted a note regarding this on August 16th. Of course he also said the targeted release window was last week, so I'm personally expecting 7.7 to ship any minute/hour/day now.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
You certainly are correct in saying there hasn't been much communication from the core CentOS team.It certainly would be nice to know what the hangups are so the community can help. Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
L~
Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
See this is where you guys start losing everyone. That is just a silly statement and pisses people off. You see people from the project tweeting left and right and not answering actual questions about release timelines. Then someone comes along and says something that is total and absolute crap.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:47 PM Akshay Kumar akshayk@gmail.com wrote:
Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
See this is where you guys start losing everyone. That is just a silly statement and pisses people off. You see people from the project tweeting left and right and not answering actual questions about release timelines. Then someone comes along and says something that is total and absolute crap.
I don't think there's a need to escalate this. It is absolutely natural for developers to think, "Can't they trust me when I tell them that I'm still working on it?"
I do agree with you, though, that it is absolutely *unnatural* for users to think, "I haven't heard a thing for 6 weeks, I guess they're just busy working really hard." It would help users immensely if someone who knew where things stood could at least give a brief update every week or two, saying that work is still ongoing, and at least giving a brief summary about why it's taking so long (along the lines of Ladar Levison's email about the installer).
-George
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:02 PM George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:47 PM Akshay Kumar akshayk@gmail.com wrote:
Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
See this is where you guys start losing everyone. That is just a silly statement and pisses people off. You see people from the project tweeting left and right and not answering actual questions about release timelines. Then someone comes along and says something that is total and absolute crap.
I don't think there's a need to escalate this. It is absolutely natural for developers to think, "Can't they trust me when I tell them that I'm still working on it?"
I do agree with you, though, that it is absolutely *unnatural* for users to think, "I haven't heard a thing for 6 weeks, I guess they're just busy working really hard." It would help users immensely if someone who knew where things stood could at least give a brief update every week or two, saying that work is still ongoing, and at least giving a brief summary about why it's taking so long (along the lines of Ladar Levison's email about the installer).
In my view, the biggest problem is that *whatever* is being done is totally hidden from us. We don't know what's going on, there's no view to it, and the "status page" says that the last task is "not started" with not much explanation.
From any reasonable person's perspective, it seems like CentOS 8 has
fallen into a black hole...
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, at 12:19 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:02 PM George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:47 PM Akshay Kumar akshayk@gmail.com wrote:
Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
See this is where you guys start losing everyone. That is just a silly statement and pisses people off. You see people from the project tweeting left and right and not answering actual questions about release timelines. Then someone comes along and says something that is total and absolute crap.
I don't think there's a need to escalate this. It is absolutely natural for developers to think, "Can't they trust me when I tell them that I'm still working on it?"
I do agree with you, though, that it is absolutely *unnatural* for users to think, "I haven't heard a thing for 6 weeks, I guess they're just busy working really hard." It would help users immensely if someone who knew where things stood could at least give a brief update every week or two, saying that work is still ongoing, and at least giving a brief summary about why it's taking so long (along the lines of Ladar Levison's email about the installer).
In my view, the biggest problem is that *whatever* is being done is totally hidden from us. We don't know what's going on, there's no view to it, and the "status page" says that the last task is "not started" with not much explanation.
From any reasonable person's perspective, it seems like CentOS 8 has fallen into a black hole...
Agreed. I'd expect ongoing work and issues to be discussed on this list or in #centos-devel on freenode. Is there a Slack I need to join? (I've once too often found that a black hole was because stuff had moved to that proprietary platform.)
Where is the ongoing work being discussed for this community project? Direct e-mail? In-person? Did I miss the process of joining the community? SCLo SIG seem to be the only folks using the #centos-meeting channel.
V/r, James Cassell
On 10/09/2019 17:01, George Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:47 PM Akshay Kumar akshayk@gmail.com wrote:
Barring that, it might help for you think of it like this: when developers go silent, it simply means they're busy working...
See this is where you guys start losing everyone. That is just a silly statement and pisses people off. You see people from the project tweeting left and right and not answering actual questions about release timelines. Then someone comes along and says something that is total and absolute crap.
I don't think there's a need to escalate this. It is absolutely natural for developers to think, "Can't they trust me when I tell them that I'm still working on it?"
I do agree with you, though, that it is absolutely *unnatural* for users to think, "I haven't heard a thing for 6 weeks, I guess they're just busy working really hard." It would help users immensely if someone who knew where things stood could at least give a brief update every week or two, saying that work is still ongoing, and at least giving a brief summary about why it's taking so long (along the lines of Ladar Levison's email about the installer).
-George
To give you an example - OpenStack currently has CentOS as a base OS[1] for deciding the python versions we are testing for each release.
For our upcoming release, we want to drop python2.7 (for obvious reasons), but if we are going to keep CentOS 7 as a base OS, we can't.
Having some idea of a timescale would allow us to choose to leave it as a base OS (if the expected date is before the start of the new development cycle), or drop it (if it is after).
With the current lack of any communication (and the wiki showing that work for release is "Not started"), we have to consider the removal.
I know the last thing developers need is someone else asking for timelines, but some outward communications would help people like us to make informed choices.
1 - https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/project-testing-interface.html...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
W dniu 10.09.2019 o 18:42, Graham Hayes pisze:
To give you an example - OpenStack currently has CentOS as a base OS[1] for deciding the python versions we are testing for each release.
For our upcoming release, we want to drop python2.7 (for obvious reasons), but if we are going to keep CentOS 7 as a base OS, we can't.
Having some idea of a timescale would allow us to choose to leave it as a base OS (if the expected date is before the start of the new development cycle), or drop it (if it is after).
With the current lack of any communication (and the wiki showing that work for release is "Not started"), we have to consider the removal.
I know the last thing developers need is someone else asking for timelines, but some outward communications would help people like us to make informed choices.
In Kolla (another OpenStack project) we are building OpenStack components as container images.
For Ubuntu 18.04 and Debian 10 we already moved to Python 3 with whatever we could (there are some binary packages which bring Python 2.7 as dependency).
CentOS support stays at 7 for now with Python 2.7 in images. We were waiting for CentOS 8 to appear so we could move to Python 3 there too. For now we hope that centos:8 will arrive sooner than later.
On 9/10/19 9:59 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
For Ubuntu 18.04 and Debian 10 we already moved to Python 3 with whatever we could (there are some binary packages which bring Python 2.7 as dependency).
CentOS support stays at 7 for now with Python 2.7 in images. We were waiting for CentOS 8 to appear so we could move to Python 3 there too. For now we hope that centos:8 will arrive sooner than later.
CentOS 7.7 will also include python 3(.6) in the base OS as well; so you should be able to move to Python 3 with either CentOS 7.7 or CentOS 8, right?
-Greg
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:07:02AM -0700, Greg Bailey wrote:
CentOS 7.7 will also include python 3(.6) in the base OS as well; so you should be able to move to Python 3 with either CentOS 7.7 or CentOS 8, right?
I know in OpenShift I'm using the centos/python-36-centos7 container which uses the SCL, I believe.
W dniu 10.09.2019 o 19:07, Greg Bailey pisze:
On 9/10/19 9:59 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
For Ubuntu 18.04 and Debian 10 we already moved to Python 3 with whatever we could (there are some binary packages which bring Python 2.7 as dependency).
CentOS support stays at 7 for now with Python 2.7 in images. We were waiting for CentOS 8 to appear so we could move to Python 3 there too. For now we hope that centos:8 will arrive sooner than later.
CentOS 7.7 will also include python 3(.6) in the base OS as well; so you should be able to move to Python 3 with either CentOS 7.7 or CentOS 8, right?
We follow whatever RDO follows. For now it means Py2.
On 9/10/19 7:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
... <rantmode> Yep, sounds just like the old days..... where people who are receiving a valuable product for no cost go ballistic because a product they are paying nothing for is not out as quickly as they want......if you want faster, pay RH for a subscription. Yes that is a bit harsh, but so was the original post, bringing up the 'old days' in that manner. If anything, I'm being less harsh than the OP. But, then again, my experience is that paying customers are typically a whole lot less demanding than those who get it for free. </rantmode>
For what it's worth, as far as I can tell there's no real holdup on 7.7 since all the 7.7 packages are in CR, I've updated several critical C7 machines to 7.7 myself over the past week or so; there is a period of time to create new install media and such, and that can sometimes pose some interesting issues. Full instructions on using CR have been posted. I myself use the following procedure in general (as I've had the current rpm and yum versions hiccup once or twice on new content, and I've had kernel updates over the years silently fail during the creation of the new initrd in particular with a large-enough updated package set on occasion, so I've found doing it this way has been more reliable for me in my use cases):
yum clean all yum --enablerepo=cr update rpm yum yum --enablerepo=cr update kernel yum --enablerepo=cr update <reboot, and after a successful reboot with the new kernel> package-cleanup --enablerepo=cr --oldkernel
CentOS 8 will be here when it's ready, and I trust the devs to know when that is (after all, I'm trusting them for my OS, why wouldn't I trust their release judgment?). Would I like to know more about what's taking so long? Sure, but I can't really do anything about it, and I'd rather the team spend their time working on the problems rather than wasting valuable time merely talking to me about them. YMMV, IMHO, etc. Karanbir, et al, thanks a bunch for your often thankless work, and please don't rush the release just because I'd like to get it a few days sooner; I'm patient.
This is a prime example of the sort of stupid that people usually encounter when asking about updates. The kind of idiot that assumes just because something is offered free all responsibility goes away. Nobody asked for an accelerated schedule just an occasional update and some more transparency. When you have a ton of people depending on you you have a responsibility to them. They put their trust in you the least you can do is be open with them. Have you seen any other prominent project shirk responsibility like this. Btw, this is NOT directed towards any of the project developers just the last moron.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 7:21 PM Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On 9/10/19 7:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
...
<rantmode> Yep, sounds just like the old days..... where people who are receiving a valuable product for no cost go ballistic because a product they are paying nothing for is not out as quickly as they want......if you want faster, pay RH for a subscription. Yes that is a bit harsh, but so was the original post, bringing up the 'old days' in that manner. If anything, I'm being less harsh than the OP. But, then again, my experience is that paying customers are typically a whole lot less demanding than those who get it for free. </rantmode>
For what it's worth, as far as I can tell there's no real holdup on 7.7 since all the 7.7 packages are in CR, I've updated several critical C7 machines to 7.7 myself over the past week or so; there is a period of time to create new install media and such, and that can sometimes pose some interesting issues. Full instructions on using CR have been posted. I myself use the following procedure in general (as I've had the current rpm and yum versions hiccup once or twice on new content, and I've had kernel updates over the years silently fail during the creation of the new initrd in particular with a large-enough updated package set on occasion, so I've found doing it this way has been more reliable for me in my use cases):
yum clean all yum --enablerepo=cr update rpm yum yum --enablerepo=cr update kernel yum --enablerepo=cr update <reboot, and after a successful reboot with the new kernel> package-cleanup --enablerepo=cr --oldkernel
CentOS 8 will be here when it's ready, and I trust the devs to know when that is (after all, I'm trusting them for my OS, why wouldn't I trust their release judgment?). Would I like to know more about what's taking so long? Sure, but I can't really do anything about it, and I'd rather the team spend their time working on the problems rather than wasting valuable time merely talking to me about them. YMMV, IMHO, etc. Karanbir, et al, thanks a bunch for your often thankless work, and please don't rush the release just because I'd like to get it a few days sooner; I'm patient.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/10/19 2:51 PM, victor mason wrote:
...When you have a ton of people depending on you you have a responsibility to them. They put their trust in you the least you can do is be open with them. ...
Thanks for the compliments. In my opinion, the devs owe me nothing; they choose to build packages that I use for no cost, and I am free to use them, or not use them, as I so please. Now, my experience is that the CentOS devs go out of their way to let us know what's going on most of the time; when the workload gets large, the news of what's going on slows down, and I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather they work on the project than on communicating with me, but that's just my opinion. And, if you think that's stupid, or idiotic, or moronic.... well, ok, I have been and will be called worse.
Depending upon a gratis project for non-gratis purposes has its downsides and its risks, and those risks should be accounted for in any business plan depending upon a gratis project, whether that be CentOS or Debian or whatever.
Now, on the other hand, I do pay RH for a subscription. Now things change; there is a very well-written document that defines their responsibilities and mine, and the liabilities that go along with those responsibilities. No such agreement exists between me and the CentOS devs.
But, again, I've found the communication very good with a few exceptions, and I've come to expect those exceptions. A new major release is one area where the communication rate is going to go down, and I think that's fine, as long as the release is solid, and I trust the team enough to know that will be the case. This is not my first rodeo.
Greetings,
----- Original Message -----
when the workload gets large, the news of what's going on slows down, and I don't have a problem with that.
This discussion can continue to go round and round getting nowhere fast but most likely slow or it can be ended. I would like to point out that name calling really doesn't help so please avoid that in the future (addressing no one in particular). Thanks!
The pain point is primarily that the Building_8 page was making good progress... and each item was completed... but then the very last item was changed about three weeks ago (as has been pointed out at least once in this thread) to:
Item Started Ended Status Release work YYYY-MM-DD YYYY-MM-DD Not started
...and there it has sat since then.
Johnny Hughes explained that hey, people have CentOS 7 in production so the 7.7 update that came out much later became the priority and all efforts were put towards it. That is completely understandable... and now that we know, it relieves the, "what's going on with 8?" question. That's all anyone was asking for.
I just update the Building_8 wiki page to reflect that work on 8 is deferred for 7.7 and provided a link to Johnny's post in this thread. Hopefully that is what everyone was looking for but if others don't like the specifics of the update I made, feel free to refine it.
TYL,
On 9/10/19 10:56 PM, Scott Dowdle wrote:
I just update the Building_8 wiki page to reflect that work on 8 is deferred for 7.7 and provided a link to Johnny's post in this thread. Hopefully that is what everyone was looking for but if others don't like the specifics of the update I made, feel free to refine it.
BIG THANKS!!!! I passed that info to Facebook group members.
On 9/10/19 11:51 AM, victor mason wrote:
This is a prime example of the sort of stupid that people usually encounter when asking about updates. The kind of idiot
Speaking for myself only: Please don't be rude to other list members. This behavior is unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwelcome.
When you have a ton of people depending on you you have a responsibility to them.
Frankly, that is not true. Your need does not instill responsibility in others simply because they are able to meet it. Where you have a need, *you* have a responsibility to meet it. If you need software, you can meet that responsibility by paying for the software, or by participating in its development (for example).
How you meet that need is entirely your decision. However, making demands of people who offer their labor for free creates a toxic community. Please don't do that. When you make exchanges in life, you are free to negotiate the terms of that exchange before it is made. When you receive something without making an exchange in return, the thing you've received is a gift, and nothing more.
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 9/10/19 11:51 AM, victor mason wrote:
This is a prime example of the sort of stupid that people usually encounter when asking about updates. The kind of idiot
Speaking for myself only: Please don't be rude to other list members.? This behavior is unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwelcome.
When you have a ton of people depending on you you have a responsibility to them.
Frankly, that is not true.? Your need does not instill responsibility in others simply because they are able to meet it. Where you have a need, *you* have a responsibility to meet it.? If you need software, you can meet that responsibility by paying for the software, or by participating in its development (for example).
How you meet that need is entirely your decision.? However, making demands of people who offer their labor for free creates a toxic community.? Please don't do that.? When you make exchanges in life, you are free to negotiate the terms of that exchange before it is made.? When you receive something without making an exchange in return, the thing you've received is a gift, and nothing more.
Well said!! I fail to understand how people think that someone who volunteers their time and energy to provide something for free obligates them to provide anything for anyone else.
As has been said many times before, If what is provided for free meets your needs then use it, if not find something else that does. It might not be free but not all things in life are. :-)
I use Centos because it WORKSFORME. When that is no longer the case I will find something that does. Paid or not. That is my responsibility and no one elses.
Regards,
On 9/10/19 6:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8%C2%A0was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
WRT 7.7.1908 .. CR is released:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-cr-announce/2019-August/thread.htm...
WRT CentOS 8 .. it has taken a back seat to 7.7.1908. Millions of users already use CentOS Linux 7. Those people needs updates.
I updated the CentOS-7 build page .. we have to build new kernels for aarch64 and power9 because Red Hat dropped support for those in RHEL (they were tech previews there); however CentOS does not want to drop those users, so we are engineering a kernel for them.
Anyway .. the os/ trees for 7.7.1908 are now (very recently added) to the QA tree. They need full QA .. then we can build updates for the 7.7.1908 release. We can't build them now, because if the os/ dir is broken .. the updates built from it will also be broken.
Once the updates are built .. and tested .. then the 7.7.1908 tree will he released.
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
On 9/10/19 3:24 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8%C2%A0was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
WRT 7.7.1908 .. CR is released:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-cr-announce/2019-August/thread.htm...
WRT CentOS 8 .. it has taken a back seat to 7.7.1908. Millions of users already use CentOS Linux 7. Those people needs updates.
I updated the CentOS-7 build page .. we have to build new kernels for aarch64 and power9 because Red Hat dropped support for those in RHEL (they were tech previews there); however CentOS does not want to drop those users, so we are engineering a kernel for them.
Anyway .. the os/ trees for 7.7.1908 are now (very recently added) to the QA tree. They need full QA .. then we can build updates for the 7.7.1908 release. We can't build them now, because if the os/ dir is broken .. the updates built from it will also be broken.
Once the updates are built .. and tested .. then the 7.7.1908 tree will he released.
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
I would also like to point out .. there are 3 people who work on CentOS Linux. We do not have 1500 engineers to get work done.
Thanks, Johnny! That update was great! Two things:
a) What can people do to help? b) What kind of beer do you drink and where should we send a case?
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:34 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 9/10/19 3:24 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 9/10/19 6:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
WRT 7.7.1908 .. CR is released:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-cr-announce/2019-August/thread.htm...
WRT CentOS 8 .. it has taken a back seat to 7.7.1908. Millions of users already use CentOS Linux 7. Those people needs updates.
I updated the CentOS-7 build page .. we have to build new kernels for aarch64 and power9 because Red Hat dropped support for those in RHEL (they were tech previews there); however CentOS does not want to drop those users, so we are engineering a kernel for them.
Anyway .. the os/ trees for 7.7.1908 are now (very recently added) to the QA tree. They need full QA .. then we can build updates for the 7.7.1908 release. We can't build them now, because if the os/ dir is broken .. the updates built from it will also be broken.
Once the updates are built .. and tested .. then the 7.7.1908 tree will he released.
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
I would also like to point out .. there are 3 people who work on CentOS Linux. We do not have 1500 engineers to get work done.
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/10/19 3:41 PM, Akshay Kumar wrote:
Thanks, Johnny! That update was great! Two things:
a) What can people do to help?
Your can test what is currently in CR for in / all arches for 7.7.1908 .. and let us know if you find any issues with that.
b) What kind of beer do you drink and where should we send a case?
Thanks .. I am usually around at several conferences .. i will be at the cPanel event in Atlanta 23-26 September.
<snip>
On 9/10/19 10:33 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I would also like to point out .. there are 3 people who work on CentOS Linux. We do not have 1500 engineers to get work done.
That is OK Johnny, we are VERY grateful for your work and do not expect miracles, it will take as long as it takes.
All we asked was to be notified WHY is taking longer then we *expected*. I had already made preparations to reinstall my laptop and was thinking of installin 8.x on one server, but could not plan it without any kind of ETA. Now I know not to expect it in next few weeks so I will go with 7.x.
I also posted this in Facebook group so people can have better idea when CentOS 8 will be out, not to sit on their hands waiting for it. It will ease tensions that arose from not knowing what to expect.
On 9/10/19 3:33 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I would also like to point out .. there are 3 people who work on CentOS Linux. We do not have 1500 engineers to get work done.
How can I start helping? I just signed up for a CentOS account and applied to the Cloud SIG. I am involved in the Fedora Cloud SIG and I have interests in helping where I can with CentOS as my company is going to shift to CentOS 8 for our VMs.
Is there a new user doc I can read or a place to start? I was hoping I could grab the current CentOS 8 qcow build off of CentOS koji but it seems to be forbidden for some reason.
Thanks! Joe
On 9/17/19 1:52 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
How can I start helping? I just signed up for a CentOS account and applied to the Cloud SIG. I am involved in the Fedora Cloud SIG and I have interests in helping where I can with CentOS as my company is going to shift to CentOS 8 for our VMs.
You're making the right steps to start off, that's for sure.
Is there a new user doc I can read or a place to start?
There are some pages in the wiki about building from source out of git, mainly https://wiki.centos.org/Sources but I'm not sure if you would consider them 'new user' docs or not; depends on what you mean by 'new user' I guess.
I was hoping I could grab the current CentOS 8 qcow build off of CentOS koji but it seems to be forbidden for some reason.
It's giving you a 'forbidden' because it's not released. As a previous thread started out asking about 'what is Release Work' (which hasn't been answered), there is a lot of logistics involved in releasing something as large and as 'in-demand' as CentOS 8. Mirrors have to be populated, infrastructure has to be prepared, etc, for a release like this; mirrors have been syncing for a while, I would guess, as moving multiple gigabytes of data out to hundreds of servers is not an instantaneous thing. The last thing you want is a partial mirror being used before it's ready, thus the 'forbidden' results from the mirrors and from the main CentOS koji; bandwidth, even if you have 10gb/s worth, is scarce when you consider the thousands of people who are 'on pins and needles' to get their grubby little paws on fresh CentOS 8 ISOs and packages.......
So, the most important thing is to be patient; I'm probably going to wait until at least the 27th to even start downloading; I've waited this long, three more days isn't going to kill me.
Now, back to the idea of help. I have a bit of experience doing rebuilds, as I rebuilt CentOS 5.x for IA64 after CERN dropped SLC5 support on IA64, for our Altix 350 system (since retired). This was 2012 timeframes, by the way. Everyone here remembers the triple-threat release a few years back, when CentOS 6 was near release, CentOS 5.6 was near release, and CentOS 4.10 (I think it was 4.10, at least) was near release; that's the 'Old Days' of the OP on this thread, incidentally. I remember all those offers for help rebuilding packages, especially 5.6 packages. Well, as I was stepping up releases from the last SLC IA64 release (5.4), I found out the hard way what caused the 5.6 delay (if you want details, I can go back to my notes). See, to get a truly binary-compatible-to-RedHat distribution, packages sometimes have to be built in very specific orders, thus causing the actual package build process to be single-threaded, in a manner of speaking, at least back in 5.x days.
But there's a deeper thing here; there's a trust issue for all the people who use CentOS in a production setting; this is why packages are signed, and it's why there's a process for signing packages. CentOS is a trusted source, and getting the builds and signing too distributed can dilute the basis for that trust. It's kindof like before my middle daughter got engaged (and then married less than a month later); I told her that I had to know the boy before I could give the boy my blessing (so they forged ahead without my blessing.... one of those things). Not that I have reason to distrust you or anyone else; it's just that I don't have a proven reason to trust you, because I don't know you. I've run CentOS long enough to trust the current CentOS team, as well as some former members of that team (Hi, Russ!) rather deeply, because I've known them a long time (even though I've never met most of them in person).
On 9/18/19 9:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
You're making the right steps to start off, that's for sure.
Awesome! Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
Is there a new user doc I can read or a place to start?
There are some pages in the wiki about building from source out of git, mainly https://wiki.centos.org/Sources but I'm not sure if you would consider them 'new user' docs or not; depends on what you mean by 'new user' I guess.
I should have said new contributor, not user. How do I contribute back to the CentOS project? It is pretty clear in this thread we have the developers saying "be patient we are a small team", but I don't see any clear path to offer my time to help like I do with the Fedora project. CentOS 8 is very much in my critical path for success within my organization. I want to use my personal and work time to contribute back. How do I do that?
It's giving you a 'forbidden' because it's not released. As a previous thread started out asking about 'what is Release Work' (which hasn't been answered), there is a lot of logistics involved in releasing something as large and as 'in-demand' as CentOS 8. Mirrors have to be populated, infrastructure has to be prepared, etc, for a release like this; mirrors have been syncing for a while, I would guess, as moving multiple gigabytes of data out to hundreds of servers is not an instantaneous thing. The last thing you want is a partial mirror being used before it's ready, thus the 'forbidden' results from the mirrors and from the main CentOS koji; bandwidth, even if you have 10gb/s worth, is scarce when you consider the thousands of people who are 'on pins and needles' to get their grubby little paws on fresh CentOS 8 ISOs and packages.......
So, the most important thing is to be patient; I'm probably going to wait until at least the 27th to even start downloading; I've waited this long, three more days isn't going to kill me.
Fedora builds off of Koji are not held captive, so why should they be for CentOS? We can download Fedora builds without issue off the composes or off of the Fedora Koji. I am pretty sure if the Fedora Project can pull this off, the CentOS project can get more resources from Red Hat to sustain the small subset of people that are technical enough to know about the CentOS Koji and the builds that are hosted there.
I highly doubt anyone that is going to use these builds for production and if they are able to figure how to get things going on their end, it is on them to support it. How can anyone help if the project keeps everything walled off?
Now, back to the idea of help. I have a bit of experience doing rebuilds, as I rebuilt CentOS 5.x for IA64 after CERN dropped SLC5 support on IA64, for our Altix 350 system (since retired). This was 2012 timeframes, by the way. Everyone here remembers the triple-threat release a few years back, when CentOS 6 was near release, CentOS 5.6 was near release, and CentOS 4.10 (I think it was 4.10, at least) was near release; that's the 'Old Days' of the OP on this thread, incidentally. I remember all those offers for help rebuilding packages, especially 5.6 packages. Well, as I was stepping up releases from the last SLC IA64 release (5.4), I found out the hard way what caused the 5.6 delay (if you want details, I can go back to my notes). See, to get a truly binary-compatible-to-RedHat distribution, packages sometimes have to be built in very specific orders, thus causing the actual package build process to be single-threaded, in a manner of speaking, at least back in 5.x days.
But there's a deeper thing here; there's a trust issue for all the people who use CentOS in a production setting; this is why packages are signed, and it's why there's a process for signing packages. CentOS is a trusted source, and getting the builds and signing too distributed can dilute the basis for that trust. It's kindof like before my middle daughter got engaged (and then married less than a month later); I told her that I had to know the boy before I could give the boy my blessing (so they forged ahead without my blessing.... one of those things). Not that I have reason to distrust you or anyone else; it's just that I don't have a proven reason to trust you, because I don't know you. I've run CentOS long enough to trust the current CentOS team, as well as some former members of that team (Hi, Russ!) rather deeply, because I've known them a long time (even though I've never met most of them in person).
Trust? Deeper things? I fully understand how CentOS is built and why there are things in place to ensure a high quality release. I'm not going to repackage the koji build as a CentOS prerelease and hoodwink anyone.
I think this kind of response nails my feelings on the problems we are seeing in this thread. I don't need to know you Lamar. You don't even have to know me either. I want to get access to the builds so I can start my own testing. I accept any issues that I find. I am capable enough to not only figure out how to fix my own problems, but I am also very willing submit them back to the project in any form that is useful. (or not if that is useful too)
I bet there are tons of people on this mailing list right now that are willing to beta test and provide meaningful help to the project to push the "Release CentOS cart" forward. This entire thread wouldn't be a thing if we had open access to the builds, a clear expectation that you are on your own if you use them, and a clear path to contribute back to the small team that is responsible for creating the next release of CentOS.
I know there are people willing to help with future releases. The CentOS project needs to enable us to do so. Fedora has a beta. RHEL has a beta. Why doesn't CentOS?
Joe
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 11:30, Joe Doss joe@solidadmin.com wrote:
Fedora builds off of Koji are not held captive, so why should they be for CentOS? We can download Fedora builds without issue off the composes
Fedora builds are allowed by a happy accident that the number of people who download packages are normally less than that the various apps that make up koji can handle. We in Fedora have had to limit or turn off access at times when people do download too much. The issue is that CentOS usage space is 100x that of Fedora, and even if 0.1% of CentOS users wanted to download directly from koji, that would be 100x what Fedora koji sees from outside users. If we in Fedora saw that kind of size jump we would have to severely limit access to the packages also to only approved packagers or some other method.
I understand your reasoning for the rest of the email, and it is asking for CentOS to be a different project than it is. I don't think the rest of your conversation is based on the one item above, but if it were.. it needed to be corrected.
Hey Stephen,
On 9/18/19 11:55 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Fedora builds are allowed by a happy accident that the number of people who download packages are normally less than that the various apps that make up koji can handle. We in Fedora have had to limit or turn off access at times when people do download too much. The issue is that CentOS usage space is 100x that of Fedora, and even if 0.1% of CentOS users wanted to download directly from koji, that would be 100x what Fedora koji sees from outside users. If we in Fedora saw that kind of size jump we would have to severely limit access to the packages also to only approved packagers or some other method.
My biggest point is this is a solvable problem and it shouldn't be used as a stonewall to prevent these builds from being opened in a pre-release way (AKA a beta) so advanced users can scratch whatever itch they need on their end. You don't have to serve them from Koji, you can shove somewhere that can handle the load.
I understand your reasoning for the rest of the email, and it is asking for CentOS to be a different project than it is.
I am not asking CentOS to be Fedora. I am pointing out that there is a small subset of people in control of CentOS that have access huge user base that can and will help out with the release process. When you say I am asking for "CentOS to be a different project that it is" does that mean the CentOS project closed to it's own community members helping out? Is it really a small subset of developers that do not want to give any kind of a control or access until they deem it OK?
I don't believe that is really the case, but I have lurked on this mailing list for many years and the overall vibe around release time always feels very anti-community.
Again, I will put my money where my mouth is... How can I help? Where do I start? There are others in this thread that are also asking how they can help.
Joe
On 9/18/19 11:29 AM, Joe Doss wrote:
... I should have said new contributor, not user. How do I contribute back to the CentOS project? It is pretty clear in this thread we have the developers saying "be patient we are a small team", but I don't see any clear path to offer my time to help like I do with the Fedora project. CentOS 8 is very much in my critical path for success within my organization. I want to use my personal and work time to contribute back. How do I do that?
CentOS is a rather different project than Fedora. CentOS is a straight, debranded, rebuild of RHEL. The only development in the classical sense of the word is for the pieces that aren't straight rebuilds. The 'Building 8' page listed the pieces needed; the bulk of the time is in the iterative build process and troubleshooting same. Building out of the git.centos.org sources can help; all of the pieces are there except for the binary rpms.
Trust? Deeper things? I fully understand how CentOS is built and why there are things in place to ensure a high quality release. I'm not going to repackage the koji build as a CentOS prerelease and hoodwink anyone.
After re-reading my post I can understand how you get to that statement, but that's not what I actually intended. I was talking about others actually building packages for direct distribution to help with the build load, not downloading and testing built packages. My apologies for the misstatement.
I know there are people willing to help with future releases. The CentOS project needs to enable us to do so. Fedora has a beta. RHEL has a beta. Why doesn't CentOS?
Ok, so follow with me for a moment. CentOS is a straight rebuild of RHEL. This fact is underappreciated, IMHO, and is the foundation for everything the project does. And while I can't and won't speak for the developers, I do have some experience in old-school pre-koji RPM packaging and distribution.
So, the RPM NEVRA (Name, Epoch, Version, Release, Arch) tuple for each package is a constant and is defined by the upstream package's NEVRA. Ok, suppose we have a beta, or two, or ten. What distinguishes the 'beta' packages from GA, speaking entirely in terms of NEVRA? How do you update from the 'beta' to GA if package NEVRA doesn't change? (See the Scientific Linux alpha/beta/rc process for reference).
In the specific instance I cited in my previous post, CentOS 5.6's build had a particular build order dependency; it would have been very easy to build in the wrong order (which I did, on IA64). Now, how, without modifying the GA NEVRA for each package from the upstream released NEVRA for that package, do you deal with a beta package that actually exposes a later version of an ABI than what GA needs to expose when it comes to upgrading to GA from the beta? If you change NEVRA at all you run the risk of side-effects when updating to GA or updates later. So you need to release a new package without changing NEVRA, but as far as RPM and yum are concerned it's the same package. The question boils down to a cost-benefit analysis; is the cost of having a beta, versus the benefits. Up until now, at least, the CentOS project has not had a public beta process, but rather a closed QA team process. This is characteristic of the project, and changing that involves other changes to support more transparency.
Now, having said that, Scientific Linux took the route of having betas and release candidates, and up until EL8 this was an alternative to CentOS, but not with EL8.
My own experience stems from being a Red Hat Beta Tester back in the days of the Red Hat Linux Boxed Sets; that was a closed beta team, and a fairly large one. The CentOS QA testers are that team today, and yes it would be nice to see what the requirements for being a QA tester would be, and yes I believe there is good potential to help the core project in that area. There are more opportunities in the SIGs; you've started along that path and I wish you well in it.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:35 PM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
Not to mention that this comes across as very antagonistic.
In a more positive vein, what can we do to help?
On 9/10/19 3:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
Well .. there are millions of users with 7.7.1908 .. surely you see why that would be a priority.
On 9/10/19 3:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
The UBI containers can be shared without a RHEL license.
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/introducing-red-hat-universal-base-image
Pat
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:48:43PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote:
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
I'd definitely love to hear more about your experience doing this!
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:48:43PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote:
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
I'd definitely love to hear more about your experience doing this!
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader
I strongly suggest you start a new thread on this subject.
Akemi
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:42 AM Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:48:43PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote:
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
Can we update this page https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 as twitter says https://twitter.com/CentOSProject/status/1173652996305170432 CentOS 8 is coming on 24th Sept, 2019 ?
Thanks,
Chandan Kumar
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:45 PM Chandan kumar chkumar246@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:42 AM Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:48:43PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote:
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
Can we update this page https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 as twitter says https://twitter.com/CentOSProject/status/1173652996305170432 CentOS 8 is coming on 24th Sept, 2019 ?
Sorry taking my statement back, It might be CentOS 7.7 as it mentions next version of CentOS.
Thanks,
Chandan Kumar
Chandan kumar kirjoitti 16.9.2019 klo 21.15:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:42 AM Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:00 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:48:43PM -0500, Pat Riehecky wrote:
I've been able to do much of my RHEL8 bootstrapping from the RHEL8 UBI containers.
Can we update this page https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8 as twitter says https://twitter.com/CentOSProject/status/1173652996305170432 CentOS 8 is coming on 24th Sept, 2019 ?
Yes, I just updated the page. The tweet indeed refers to the next major version, not 7.7.1908 which is just around the corner to be released.
Thank you for your patience! I know it's been a long wait, but it's worth it.
On 9/10/19 3:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
Red Hat and IBM need to know how you use CentOS Linux to make RHEL better or use it to influence buying RHEL .. why don't you blog about it.
That goes for anyone who uses CentOS Linux and because CentOS Linux exists, you have RHEL subscriptions. And explain why you would not have those RHEL subscriptions if CentOS Linux did not exist.
Thanks, Johnny hughes
On 9/10/2019 2:21 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Red Hat and IBM need to know how you use CentOS Linux to make RHEL better or use it to influence buying RHEL .. why don't you blog about it.
That goes for anyone who uses CentOS Linux and because CentOS Linux exists, you have RHEL subscriptions. And explain why you would not have those RHEL subscriptions if CentOS Linux did not exist.
Thanks, Johnny hughes
I completely understand how this can help... but at the same time I feel like I really don't. The discussion goes beyond just the 7.7 and 8 problems and reaches more into the heart of the relationship between RedHat, CentOS, and Fedora.
On the outside, we don't have much transparency as to how much internal communication is happening between all three entities.
Is RH not providing enough resources to the CentOS Project? Previous posts from @redhat.com addresses have indicated how important the EL ecosystem is already, so how much justification can someone on the outside provide for it?
For that matter, on the Fedora list it seems like it's primarily a resource question in ensuring the x86 build target remains viable, which seems rather odd for a $34B entity which should understand the importance of AltArch usage in tracking down subtle bugs. And of course Fedora itself seems prone to haphazardly adopting new tech with little or no thought to how it could affect downstream users (e.g., Modularity), despite it a) being the upstream for the RHEL release, and b) it having direct control over Fedora EPEL (which needs viable applicability to RHEL and CentOS).
It's hard to shake the impression that there's a structural problem at work here. And if so, that warrants more frank communication from RedHat employees and others involved who could be wearing all their various hats at once.
-jc
One more thing I'd like to add is that there are a lot of people who can contribute more help and resources beyond just testing. So right now is probably not a good time but after the release perhaps it make sense to see if more people can contribute. I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely have some bandwidth and maintained an internal build for RHEL3 bootstrapped from src on RH9 and then 4. Then we moved to CentOS.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:21 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 9/10/19 3:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:24 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
It's unfortunate that CentOS 8 has taken a backseat to CentOS 7.7, because the release of CentOS 8 is the pre-requisite for a lot of folks (including myself) for bootstrapping support for RHEL 8 for a lot of folks, since CentOS 8 can be freely shared...
Red Hat and IBM need to know how you use CentOS Linux to make RHEL better or use it to influence buying RHEL .. why don't you blog about it.
That goes for anyone who uses CentOS Linux and because CentOS Linux exists, you have RHEL subscriptions. And explain why you would not have those RHEL subscriptions if CentOS Linux did not exist.
Thanks, Johnny hughes
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/10/19 4:51 PM, Akshay Kumar wrote:
One more thing I'd like to add is that there are a lot of people who can contribute more help and resources beyond just testing. So right now is probably not a good time but after the release perhaps it make sense to see if more people can contribute. I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely have some bandwidth and maintained an internal build for RHEL3 bootstrapped from src on RH9 and then 4. Then we moved to CentOS.
Thanks for the offer. Building the packages does not take that long. If you look, we built the almost all the packages for 7.7,1908, for example, most of the packages were built by August 9th. Then we need to test things. Test all the links to validate that things were built in the correct order. Boot some items that don't build (like qt5-* and pytonh3-*). Then rebuild all of the things that didn't work.
The testing .. rebuilding .. testing , rebuilding is the majority of the time required.
We also have 7 architectures (x86_64, i386, armhfp, aarch64, ppc64, ppc64le and power9). So we have to test all of those .. fix issues .. test again, etc.
I have been building most of the CentOS releases for the the last 17 years. I know how to do it .. it just takes time to get it right.
But again, thanks for the offer.
And we can likely use some more help on the QA team.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
<snip>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:12 PM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 9/10/19 4:51 PM, Akshay Kumar wrote:
One more thing I'd like to add is that there are a lot of people who can contribute more help and resources beyond just testing. So right now is probably not a good time but after the release perhaps it make sense to see if more people can contribute. I can't speak for anyone else but I definitely have some bandwidth and maintained an internal build for RHEL3 bootstrapped from src on RH9 and then 4. Then we moved to CentOS.
I have been building most of the CentOS releases for the the last 17 years. I know how to do it .. it just takes time to get it right.
But again, thanks for the offer.
Given the people bandwidth constraints and the limited amount of people actually doing most of the work of the project (especially during releases), I think it might be a good idea to consider how to bring on other contributors who can help learn from you. It's rather scary thinking that if you were to be hit by a bus (let's hope that never happens!), a lot of that experience and knowledge would go away. I know I have that same problem with my org and myself!
Would it be possible to look into bringing on additional folks who can help with releases after this one is done? It would also be great to bring in some "new blood" so you could maybe retire someday :) That could also help with the ability of having someone dedicated to the current release and someone else who could help with an upcoming release.
I appreciate all of the hard work you and others have been putting into this and am looking forward to 8 when it's ready.
Thanks!
On 9/10/19 8:01 PM, Lance Albertson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:12 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org mailto:johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 9/10/19 4:51 PM, Akshay Kumar wrote: > One more thing I'd like to add is that there are a lot of people who can > contribute more help and resources beyond just testing. So right now is > probably not a good time but after the release perhaps it make sense to > see if more people can contribute. I can't speak for anyone else but I > definitely have some bandwidth and maintained an internal build for > RHEL3 bootstrapped from src on RH9 and then 4. Then we moved to CentOS. > I have been building most of the CentOS releases for the the last 17 years. I know how to do it .. it just takes time to get it right. But again, thanks for the offer.Given the people bandwidth constraints and the limited amount of people actually doing most of the work of the project (especially during releases), I think it might be a good idea to consider how to bring on other contributors who can help learn from you. It's rather scary thinking that if you were to be hit by a bus (let's hope that never happens!), a lot of that experience and knowledge would go away. I know I have that same problem with my org and myself!
Would it be possible to look into bringing on additional folks who can help with releases after this one is done? It would also be great to bring in some "new blood" so you could maybe retire someday :) That could also help with the ability of having someone dedicated to the current release and someone else who could help with an upcoming release.
I appreciate all of the hard work you and others have been putting into this and am looking forward to 8 when it's ready.
For anyone who wants to volunteer for doing things to speed development of CentOS Linux 8 ... Please, Please read the announcement that is released. You will get a way to make that happen.
Greetings,
----- Original Message by Johnny Hughes -----
For anyone who wants to volunteer for doing things to speed development of CentOS Linux 8 ... Please, Please read the announcement that is released. You will get a way to make that happen.
What release was that? Have a URL? I looked in the usual places (www.centos.org, blog.centos.org, twitter.com/centosproject) but didn't see anything related.
TYL,
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 14:21, Scott Dowdle dowdle@montanalinux.org wrote:
Greetings,
----- Original Message by Johnny Hughes -----
For anyone who wants to volunteer for doing things to speed development of CentOS Linux 8 ... Please, Please read the announcement that is released. You will get a way to make that happen.
What release was that? Have a URL? I looked in the usual places (www.centos.org, blog.centos.org, twitter.com/centosproject) but didn't see anything related.
Sorry Johnny got out of the TARDIS at the wrong time again. He means that will be released.
JOHNNY GET BACK IN HERE! Its not Tuesday, and you left your Dalek coffeecup.
TYL,
Scott Dowdle 704 Church Street Belgrade, MT 59714 (406)388-0827 [home] (406)994-3931 [work] _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 9/20/19 2:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 14:21, Scott Dowdle dowdle@montanalinux.org wrote:
Greetings,
----- Original Message by Johnny Hughes -----
For anyone who wants to volunteer for doing things to speed development of CentOS Linux 8 ... Please, Please read the announcement that is released. You will get a way to make that happen.
What release was that? Have a URL? I looked in the usual places (www.centos.org, blog.centos.org, twitter.com/centosproject) but didn't see anything related.
Sorry Johnny got out of the TARDIS at the wrong time again. He means that will be released.
JOHNNY GET BACK IN HERE! Its not Tuesday, and you left your Dalek coffeecup.
Right ... I said ...
"read the announcement that is released"
Which will be sometime on 9/24/2019 .. :)
So, please do read it on 9/24 when it comes out .. then we can discuss it here.
On 9/10/19 4:24 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
WRT 7.7.1908 .. CR is released: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-cr-announce/2019-August/thread.htm...
WRT CentOS 8 .. it has taken a back seat to 7.7.1908. Millions of users already use CentOS Linux 7. Those people needs updates. ... Then we will get back to CentOS 8 .. since because no one has it yet .. it is not a priority.
IMHO, a good choice. 7.7 is much more important, IMO, and when resources are scarce you much prioritize them.
So far, the CR updates are working out for me, although I've noticed heavy I/O causing more of a slowdown than with 7.6, both on the internal SATA/mSATA drives and external USB2/USB3 drives. But I haven't had time to dig deeply enough to triage what might be causing it. Copied some EME signal captures today (6GB or so) and the GUI became totally nonresponsive (mouse cursor moved fine, just nothing responded to any mouse events) while the copy was underway, on one of the internal drives. If anything, this CR update has been the smoothest so far for 7.x.
Thanks much for your hard work.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Lamar Owen wrote:
If anything, this CR update has been the smoothest so far for 7.x.
i second that. 159 packages updated or installed, rebooted fine, looks good.
Thanks much for your hard work.
i second that, too.
As you have no doubt seen by this point, 7.7 is now available - https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2019-September/023405.htm... - and the next major release will be available on Tuesday, September 24th - https://twitter.com/CentOSProject/status/1173652996305170432
No, it's not "an IBM thing". More details will be available next week. Thanks for your patience.
On 9/10/19 7:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8%C2%A0was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi,
I have just upgraded one of the CentOS machines smoothly to 7.7.1908.
Thanks,
--
?????? Pressure creates diamond.
On 2019-09-17 12:26 p.m., Rich Bowen wrote:
As you have no doubt seen by this point, 7.7 is now available - https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2019-September/023405.htm...
- and the next major release will be available on Tuesday, September
24th - https://twitter.com/CentOSProject/status/1173652996305170432
No, it's not "an IBM thing". More details will be available next week. Thanks for your patience.
On 9/10/19 7:10 AM, victor mason wrote:
What's the hold up on both of these? Are we back to the old days?
https://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/30/130249/CentOS-Project-Administrato...
The whole point of setting the update page at https://wiki.centos.org/About/Building_8??was so people didn't constantly ask about release dates. Redirecting queries there is completely fair if someone updates the damn thing. It's now been a few weeks with complete radio silence.
It's been 4 months since RHEL8 was released and we are coming over a month for 7.7 with a bunch of security updates piling up.
Nobody from the outside??who depends on this has any visibility into it and it's frustrating. Is this an IBM thing? What the hell is going on?
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Rich Bowen -rbowen@redhat.com @CentOSProject // @rbowen 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM Andrew Ho andrewho@animezone.org wrote:
Hi,
I have just upgraded one of the CentOS machines smoothly to 7.7.1908.
Thanks,
The upgrade is smooth. Set aside time and disk space, there are a *lot* of components to update. Beware of the problem building python module RPMs from EPEL, you'll need to instal the new "epel-rpm-macros" package to unset the "python3_pkgversion", which now points to "python3" rather than "python36" and leads to hilarity if you rely on EPEL modules named "python36-[whatever]" that were not included in the new CentOS "python3-[whatever]" modules.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 18:53, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM Andrew Ho andrewho@animezone.org wrote:
Hi,
I have just upgraded one of the CentOS machines smoothly to 7.7.1908.
Thanks,
The upgrade is smooth. Set aside time and disk space, there are a *lot* of components to update. Beware of the problem building python module RPMs from EPEL, you'll need to instal the new "epel-rpm-macros" package to unset the "python3_pkgversion", which now points to "python3" rather than "python36" and leads to hilarity if you rely on EPEL modules named "python36-[whatever]" that were not included in the new CentOS "python3-[whatever]" modules.
Some of this problem should go away in the next week as we retire some of those python36 packages as CentOS 7.7.1908 is out.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 7:32 PM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 18:53, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 2:13 PM Andrew Ho andrewho@animezone.org wrote:
Hi,
I have just upgraded one of the CentOS machines smoothly to 7.7.1908.
Thanks,
The upgrade is smooth. Set aside time and disk space, there are a *lot* of components to update. Beware of the problem building python module RPMs from EPEL, you'll need to instal the new "epel-rpm-macros" package to unset the "python3_pkgversion", which now points to "python3" rather than "python36" and leads to hilarity if you rely on EPEL modules named "python36-[whatever]" that were not included in the new CentOS "python3-[whatever]" modules.
Some of this problem should go away in the next week as we retire some of those python36 packages as CentOS 7.7.1908 is out.
It's the packages that are in EPEL, that are *not* migrated to RHEL 7.7 upstream, that trigger the problem. If epel-rpm-macros is installed, all is well. then mock and RPM say "oohh, python3_pkgversion is being set to "3" by the CentOS rpm configs", and the .spec file looks for packages named "python3-idna" instead of "python3-idna" chaos ensues. The fix is straightforward, just install epel-rpm-macros.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Akshay Kumar -
Andrew Ho -
Anssi Johansson -
Chandan kumar -
George Dunlap -
Gordon Messmer -
Graham Hayes -
Greg Bailey -
James Cassell -
Japheth Cleaver -
Jeffrey Layton -
Joe Doss -
Johnny Hughes -
Jonathan Billings -
Karanbir Singh -
Ladar Levison -
Lamar Owen -
Lance Albertson -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Matthew Miller -
me＠tdiehl.org -
Neal Gompa -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Pat Riehecky -
Rich Bowen -
Scott Dowdle -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Yates -
victor mason -
Wynona Stacy Lockwood