Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

2 participants
34758 discussions

What if this happens?
by Max Beerli 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Does anyone have concern about this? What if Redhat stops giving SRPMS for new releases and updates in public? If you buy a subscription to RHEL AS and they have to give you the SRPMS because of GPL agreement can that person provide those SRPMS to public again because of GPL? They claim they are premium OpenSource company but they are still a company and for them money is bottom line. Hopefully this is all legal and we will have SRPMS one way or the other. _________________________________________________________________ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht… Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.

5 5

[CentOS-devel] Re: [Centos] Issues/thoughts re CentOS-4 (fwd)
by Lance Davis 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

I had sent my reply to centos-devel, but as there is discussion here - here it is ... Lance ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:47:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Lance Davis <lance(a)uklinux.net> Reply-To: centos-devel(a)caosity.org To: John Newbigin <jn(a)it.swin.edu.au> Cc: centos-devel(a)caosity.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] Re: [Centos] Issues/thoughts re CentOS-4 (The beta isnt public yet - so I have moved this thread to centos-devel - where it should probably be anyway ... ) On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, John Newbigin wrote: > This is a list of issues for discussion for CentOS-4. Most of it is > based on my experience from building/maintaining CentOS-2 and observing > CentOS-3. I have not seen the CentOS-4 beta yet so I don't know if any > of this is already done. If these have been discussed on IRC then > perhaps someone could produce a shot summary of the outcomes....? > > > * Just call it CentOS-4 not 4.1 etc. Too confusing and serves no real > purpose It will be called CentOS-4 but will have 4.0,4.1,4.2 as iso releases. It means that the version of centos-release rpm will always be 4 , but the contents will probably say 4 (4.0) or somesuch. This is necessary to know what version people have installed (or at least what version they have (attempted to) upgraded to. > * All modified rpm should use mezzanine or equiv. This makes it easier > to track changes, build updates and generate a report on what has changed. That needs someone to sort it out ... and all developers to be up to speed with the packages ... > * Modified rpm should have .c4.n added to the release > - c4 = centos 4. (works well once the 4.1 is dropped) > - .n = a number starting at 1. The spec only 0 does not scale if you > need to make another spec only change. The changelog will tell you what > has changed. yes it does scale - you make it c0.1 ( or c4.0.1 ) I think it is useful to indicate a spec only change, but am happy to go with .c4.0 for this purpose if you wish, I still prefer .c0 Also there is no problem having .c0 rpms in different centos versions because they are only non changed redhat rpms with trademark edits in the specfile. If the specfile was edited so as to produce different output then that would have to be a .1 > * Mission: To stay as close to RedHat as possible > Issues: some things need to be modified to support this. For example > the cpu/memory restrictions will be removed(like in CentOS-3). Given > that we are doing this, should we also lift other artificial constraints > like installing on i386? The restraint for i586 will be removed, as I am working on doing for U4 , however I'm not sure i386 is a good idea ... It is easy enough - just build the kernel and have it in the install tree. > If we start making changes, where do we draw the line? In CentOS-2 I > have fixed some small 1 line bugs (mostly packaging issues) but this > might be a contentious issue. What about a CentOS+ repo. for enhanced > versions? Bug fixes are not contentious IMHO, but they should be pushed upstream. a CentOS+ repo sounds like a good idea if someone is prepared to do the work. I think it would have to work along the contrib lines and be experimental / not supported > * Issue: should the distro be self hosting? I think as long as the > requirements are available from the addon/extras repos. then I don't > think this is needed out of the box. Obviously the build environment > needs to be well documented and reproducible. indeed - as long as the components to make it self hosting are there then they do not need to be installed/installable from anaconda. > * Mission: Remove RedHat trademarks. > Issues: should we replace all rh logos/icons or just the ones required > by RedHat? I think if the file/words can be replaced then yes, but > package names etc. should be left alone. all of the rh/logos and icons are removed - to give a 'better user experience'. There is no need to change the package names that redhat have chosen to give to the linux community. (In rhel4 redhat-config -> system-config - and also a lot of work has been done by Fedora removing the word redhat where it is uneccesary - this has flowed through into Rhel4 - indeed even in U4 for 3.3 there are occasions where I have had to remove patches because they had been modified upstream by Fedora project and incorporated by Redhat) . > * Issue: yum > Don't ever auto-modify yum.conf. Too confusing. It is a shame that yum does not support multiple configuration directories ... > Invent a system for selecting/allocating a mirror. Users should always > use a 3rd party mirror and not the main caosity mirrors. > Issue: every mirror has different paths. We need to clean up all the > symlinks and multi versions on the mirrors. (We need someone in change > of the mirrors) There is no issue here - all of the mirrors use the same paths within the cAos repo - the mirror is just defined as the url including the path to the cAos repo - that does not cause any problems that I can see and can be used in automated scripts. Someone does need to volunteer to write the script to 'auto-modify yum.conf' to use a local mirror (ok not 'auto' maybe) - it would be done on install and manually thereafter - I am guessing a yum-config-centos rpm or some such containing a bash script that actually produces the first yum.conf on install (using the geolocate stuff) and thereafter would only write a .rpmnew unless run manually. How about the yum.conf in the actual yum rpm ?? what will happen to that ?? It is also a shame that yum cannot use iso image sets - although I wonder if with a dvd and all packages on a single disc the [base] repo could be local disc - probably not :( We have Rick Graves managing the mirror database now - I had been doing it up until recently. > * Issue: gpg key. > This should be installed by default so the user does not have to find & > import it. At a minimum it should be in /usr/share/doc/centos-release > and work like a RedHat box. agreed - I have been discussing this at length with Skvidal and Orc etc, the most recent proposal is to auto install the gpg key only if it is the same key that the yum rpm has been signed with - by checking fingerprints, otherwise to squawk. In any event to tell the user that the key has bene installed and how to check whether the key has been compromised/is the right key. (Skvidal - sorry - not had chance to discuss with you since discussiuon with Orc) > > * Issue: release QA > Before public release, a QA procedure should make sure that there are no > obvious problems (like the comps issue of 3.3). agreed > * Idea: automatic patch building. > It should be possible to build most patches without intervention. I > don't know what the current systems in place are but if there were > autobuilt unsigned patches available it would allow > - testing of patches before they are 'officially' released > - checking the progress if a patch agreed - there is no automatic system at present. Thanks for your input - great Regards Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel(a)caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

1 0

RE: [Centos] CentOS newbie just saying hello
by Max Beerli 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

>From: "Nigel Kendrick" <nigel.kendrick(a)petdoctors.co.uk> >Reply-To: <nigel.kendrick(a)petdoctors.co.uk> >To: <centos(a)caosity.org.> >Subject: [Centos] CentOS newbie just saying hello >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:53:44 -0000 > >Hi folks, > >Just a quick hello having installed CentOS on my first box - an Acer >Altos G310 (P4 2.8GHz, 768MB RAM with 70GB + 300GB storage. The 300GB >unit is a SATA disk which I hope to software (hardware!?) mirror - if >I'm in for any major fun mirroring a SATA drive do let me know now - I >think hardware mirroring is not an option (yet!?) but I haven't checked >this out completely. Maybe http://3ware.com/products/serial_ata.asp I don't have SATA hardwares. How is everyone else using them hopefully without problems? I would like hardware SATA RAID in future as well. Anyone like 3ware cards for this? Stable? >This isn't my first *nix/linux install - I go all the way back to Daisy >Dnix, Xenix, SC..er..you know who..unix, via VAX VMS and CP/M on various >systems. I have a couple of RH9 boxes that will need updating soon and >I'm also running one other Acer G310 server on..er..White Box..(sorry!) >so this is kind of a 'keeping my options open' thing! I get impression that Centos development process is better compared to Whitebox because community working on OS is better than one person. _________________________________________________________________ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=ht… Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.

1 0

CentOS-3 x86_64 errata - Updated ruby package fixes denial of service issue
by Will Dinkel 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Updated ruby package is available for CentOS-3 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-635.html Updated files are: RPMS/irb-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-devel-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-docs-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-libs-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-mode-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm RPMS/ruby-tcltk-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.x86_64.rpm SRPMS/ruby-1.6.8-9.EL3.3.src.rpm Execute "yum update ruby" to apply. Will Dinkel Chief Systems Engineer Team HPC, Inc. 785-542-2135 x304 wdinkel(a)teamhpc.com http://www.teamhpc.com

1 0

CentOS newbie just saying hello
by Nigel Kendrick 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Hi folks, Just a quick hello having installed CentOS on my first box - an Acer Altos G310 (P4 2.8GHz, 768MB RAM with 70GB + 300GB storage. The 300GB unit is a SATA disk which I hope to software (hardware!?) mirror - if I'm in for any major fun mirroring a SATA drive do let me know now - I think hardware mirroring is not an option (yet!?) but I haven't checked this out completely. This isn't my first *nix/linux install - I go all the way back to Daisy Dnix, Xenix, SC..er..you know who..unix, via VAX VMS and CP/M on various systems. I have a couple of RH9 boxes that will need updating soon and I'm also running one other Acer G310 server on..er..White Box..(sorry!) so this is kind of a 'keeping my options open' thing! This new G310 will be running Bacula to provide remote backup services for 25 regional sites, and the other G310 is being used as a mail/Web/Intranet (eGroupWare) server for our 250 staff. Thanks to all those who made CentOS what it is - hope I can 'give back' sometime by sharing my experience where relevant. Nigel Kendrick --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004

1 0

XFS kernels ?
by Martin Hamant 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Hello ! I'm looking for updated XFS kernel RPMS for Centos 3.3 ? Any idea ? -- Martin

1 0

CentOS-2 errata
by John Newbigin 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded the the centos mirror: RHSA-2004:505-01 Updated kernel packages fix security vulnerability Files available: kernel-2.4.9-e.57.athlon.rpm kernel-smp-2.4.9-e.57.athlon.rpm kernel-BOOT-2.4.9-e.57.i386.rpm kernel-doc-2.4.9-e.57.i386.rpm kernel-headers-2.4.9-e.57.i386.rpm kernel-source-2.4.9-e.57.i386.rpm kernel-2.4.9-e.57.i686.rpm kernel-debug-2.4.9-e.57.i686.rpm kernel-enterprise-2.4.9-e.57.i686.rpm kernel-smp-2.4.9-e.57.i686.rpm kernel-summit-2.4.9-e.57.i686.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- John Newbigin - Computer Systems Officer School of Information Technology Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.it.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

1 0

CentOS-2 errata
by John Newbigin 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded the the centos mirror: RHSA-2004:536-01 Updated ncompress package fixes security issue and bug Files available: ncompress-4.2.4-37.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- John Newbigin - Computer Systems Officer School of Information Technology Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.it.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

1 0

CentOS-2 errata
by John Newbigin 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded the the centos mirror: RHSA-2004:635-01 Updated ruby package fixes denial of service issue Files available: irb-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm ruby-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm ruby-devel-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm ruby-docs-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm ruby-libs-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm ruby-tcltk-1.6.4-2.AS21.1.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- John Newbigin - Computer Systems Officer School of Information Technology Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.it.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

1 0

U4 beta rpms for CentOS
by lance＠uklinux.net 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

I have built a set of preview U4 beta rpms for CentOS i386 - these will become the basis of CentOS 3.4 when Rhel 3 U4 is released. I will not be pushing these out to the mirrors, but they are available at http://beta.caosity.org/centos/3.3/U4beta The beta packages are not signed. To add then to yum.conf add :- [u4beta] name=CentOS-$releasever - U4beta baseurl=http://beta.caosity.org/centos/$releasever/U4beta/$basearch/ gpgcheck=0 Please do not use these on production servers as consequences cannot be predicted .. I'll be rolling some beta isos in the next few days Any problems - bugzilla ... Regards Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss