I've been a RH/Fedora guy since the RH8 days. When Fedora came along, I moved to it, but its been a bit painful beta testing software all the time. I ran Ubuntu for a while, but I found their package management to be difficult... I do a lot of technical work, development and loading and building special stuff. I much prefer RPMs over other methods of package distribution.
Presently I'm miffed with the Fedora community. Back in July I blindly upgraded to F9 because I was in need of a few things that it shipped with. Little did I know it contained KDE4 or more precisely a rough, unfinished version of KDE4. I stuck with it, however, and upgraded to KDE4.1 and finally to KDE 4.1.2.
About a month ago I received a new laptop. Being it was a new machine, I did a fresh install of F8 on it, thus dumping KDE4.
While all has been well since then, I am watching the KDE4 release schedule and noting that I don't think KDE4 is going to be done, ie polished and ready to use until late spring, 2009. I've also noted the Fedora is going to abandon support for F8 before Christmas. As F9 contains a very bleeding edge version of KDE4, I am loathe to upgrade to it.
Thus I am shopping for a new OS to solve this problem and the problem of continually being a beta tester if one is an up to date Fedora user. With Fedora it seems that one just gets a new installation working nicely when support for it is dropped and the cycle starts all over again. I'd like to get away from that.
So... questions.
a) I am running F8 right now. Most, but not all, of the package versions seem about the same as CentOS 5.2. Kernels are the notable exception to this rule. Could I forego F8 updates for a while, to leave CentOS catch up, and then add the CentOS repository to my repo list and "update" to the CentOS via yum ?
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
c) Is there any problem with using the livna repository for various things that I might need ? I notice that they don't have a CentOS specific repository, but would it be OK to point to F8 or so and use those RPMs ?
Thanks
I'm listening if you have any other comments or advice on my situation.
LG
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Linuxguy123 linuxguy123@gmail.com wrote:
Thus I am shopping for a new OS to solve this problem and the problem of continually being a beta tester if one is an up to date Fedora user. With Fedora it seems that one just gets a new installation working nicely when support for it is dropped and the cycle starts all over again. I'd like to get away from that.
So... questions.
a) I am running F8 right now. Most, but not all, of the package versions seem about the same as CentOS 5.2. Kernels are the notable exception to this rule. Could I forego F8 updates for a while, to leave CentOS catch up, and then add the CentOS repository to my repo list and "update" to the CentOS via yum ?
It would not work too well. For stability you would be better installing CentOS-5 as the glibc, etc in F-8 are much newer than EL-5.
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
CentOS is a bug-for-bug rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. RHEL-5 will always be 2.6.18 so this does not look this would be a good match. Using bleeding edge kernels on CentOS-5 are up to the user to build and debug. Not sure how many applications you would have to update to work with a bleeding edge kernel: udev, hal, dbus, etc would all need updates and the programs relying on them would need updates... recurse until you run out of packages.
c) Is there any problem with using the livna repository for various things that I might need ? I notice that they don't have a CentOS specific repository, but would it be OK to point to F8 or so and use those RPMs ?
No.. you would need to use EL-5 repository.
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
That would not be a bad idea. I always wondered how well a recent kernel would work with CentOS 5, but I never took the time to test a Fedora kernel on my dependable boxes.
A project with this focus might indeed be useful.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
That would not be a bad idea. I always wondered how well a recent kernel would work with CentOS 5, but I never took the time to test a Fedora kernel on my dependable boxes.
A project with this focus might indeed be useful.
Let me add that nothing should be holding you (anyone) from starting a project by sending an email with intentions, get hold of a wiki-page to list your ideas and progress and motivating people to help and test.
Whether that is a bleeding-edge kernel project, a new tool to migrate sideways to and from RHEL, or a design, documentation or translation project. I am sure your effort is useful, but often it needs commitment and determination to get things going.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:33 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
IMHO should be a separate repo, or at least a naming scheme that would let people still use the "traditional" centos-plus kernels (derived from the same kernel versions with additional components being turned on) would be required. Otherwise there would be too much risk of people unintentionally updating to bleeding-edge kernels.
Along these lines, it might be a good idea to add some of the other more "modern" features for those who want them and understand the risks - again in a clearly specified bleeding-edge repo (or repos) - as long as people are willing to step up and help with building, testing, and maintaining packages. From recent requests on the list there seems to be some pent-up demand for newer features. This could help establish CentOS as both a platform that can be used by those who want EL stability but don't need the support, and as a "bridge" for testing new features on a stable base.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:33 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
IMHO should be a separate repo, or at least a naming scheme that would let people still use the "traditional" centos-plus kernels (derived from the same kernel versions with additional components being turned on) would be required. Otherwise there would be too much risk of people unintentionally updating to bleeding-edge kernels.
I think it would need to be a seperate repo for other reasons... I believe lots of userspace/kernelspace changed in the 2.6.22 time frame so a lot of sub-packages need to handle to.
Hi,
for what it's worth, I'm running CentOS 5 with the planet-core, planet-ccrma and novell-mono repos which exist for centos/rhel5 these days. The planet-core repo contains the 2.6.24.7 with realtime patches and other goodness for audio/video stuffs. I've been using this setup for about 6 months now and i'm very happy with the stability + speed this offers.
Greets,
Rubin.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 22:33 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Linuxguy123 wrote:
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
Why not step up and offer to maintain a bleeding edge kernel in the centos-plus repos ?
IMHO should be a separate repo, or at least a naming scheme that would let people still use the "traditional" centos-plus kernels (derived from the same kernel versions with additional components being turned on) would be required. Otherwise there would be too much risk of people unintentionally updating to bleeding-edge kernels.
I think it would need to be a seperate repo for other reasons... I believe lots of userspace/kernelspace changed in the 2.6.22 time frame so a lot of sub-packages need to handle to.
Phil Schaffner wrote:
IMHO should be a separate repo, or at least a naming scheme that would let people still use the "traditional" centos-plus kernels
Sure, thats a bridge to cross when we have someone offering to maintain this. And I was already thinking along those lines..
- KB
on 10-30-2008 12:51 PM Linuxguy123 spake the following:
I've been a RH/Fedora guy since the RH8 days. When Fedora came along, I moved to it, but its been a bit painful beta testing software all the time. I ran Ubuntu for a while, but I found their package management to be difficult... I do a lot of technical work, development and loading and building special stuff. I much prefer RPMs over other methods of package distribution.
Presently I'm miffed with the Fedora community. Back in July I blindly upgraded to F9 because I was in need of a few things that it shipped with. Little did I know it contained KDE4 or more precisely a rough, unfinished version of KDE4. I stuck with it, however, and upgraded to KDE4.1 and finally to KDE 4.1.2.
About a month ago I received a new laptop. Being it was a new machine, I did a fresh install of F8 on it, thus dumping KDE4.
While all has been well since then, I am watching the KDE4 release schedule and noting that I don't think KDE4 is going to be done, ie polished and ready to use until late spring, 2009. I've also noted the Fedora is going to abandon support for F8 before Christmas. As F9 contains a very bleeding edge version of KDE4, I am loathe to upgrade to it.
Thus I am shopping for a new OS to solve this problem and the problem of continually being a beta tester if one is an up to date Fedora user. With Fedora it seems that one just gets a new installation working nicely when support for it is dropped and the cycle starts all over again. I'd like to get away from that.
So... questions.
a) I am running F8 right now. Most, but not all, of the package versions seem about the same as CentOS 5.2. Kernels are the notable exception to this rule. Could I forego F8 updates for a while, to leave CentOS catch up, and then add the CentOS repository to my repo list and "update" to the CentOS via yum ?
Actually, CentOS 5 branched from Fedora 6. At that point they did a freeze on changes to the OS.
b) One of the things I really need are up to date (bleeding edge) kernels. For example, F8 has 2.6.26 kernels, whereas CentOS appears to be running 2.6.18 kernels. I do know how to build my own kernels, but that is a pain.
What do you need in the bleeding edge kernels? If you are looking at security updates, those get backported very regularly. If you are looking for drivers, that is a different story. The Enterprise distros tend to stay at the dull side of the knife. The bleeding edge is not where you want to be when you want a server up for "five nines".
Does someone keep a separate repository that has more modern kernels ? Can yum be configured to use only specific packages (ie kernels) from a specific repository ?
You have to build your own and accept the responsibility.
c) Is there any problem with using the livna repository for various things that I might need ? I notice that they don't have a CentOS specific repository, but would it be OK to point to F8 or so and use those RPMs ?
There is only a problem if you don't mind breaking it. CentOS 5 was based on Fedora 6. Fedora 8 is way ahead. If you want something newer, CentOS 6 might be out in mid-2009. It is speculated to be based on Fedora 10 or so, but I'm sure that RedHat will make it as stable as possible. After all, the more paid support contracts that you "don't" have to actually fix anything, the bigger your profits are.
You can try the live cd of CentOS 5 and see if it works with your lappy.
Thanks
I'm listening if you have any other comments or advice on my situation.
You can have stability, or bleeding edge, but usually not both. It is like asking for a car that runs like a Ferrari, but uses gasoline like a Prius. You have to make choices.
Scott Silva wrote:
Actually, CentOS 5 branched from Fedora 6. At that point they did a freeze on changes to the OS.
That is not true, there are plenty of changes to the kernel, including rebases's, updates, fix's and even new packages being added in and obsolete ones being removed.
CentOS-5 today has little in functional terms common to fedora6. There are still some leaf nodes from those days, but saying something like 'freeze on changes to the OS' is just wrong.
Linuxguy123 wrote:
I've been a RH/Fedora guy since the RH8 days. When Fedora came along, I moved to it, but its been a bit painful beta testing software all the time. I ran Ubuntu for a while, but I found their package management to be difficult... I do a lot of technical work, development and loading and building special stuff. I much prefer RPMs over other methods of package distribution. I'm listening if you have any other comments or advice on my situation.
You are the guy who is having a bit of a moan on the Fedora list about KDE. How many patches have you contributed to Fedora or to CentOS? This is open source after all, you have access to the source.
Regards, Vandaman.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Vandaman wrote:
I'm listening if you have any other comments or advice on my situation.
Sorry, I missed the question.
- -- Milton Calnek BSc, A/Slt(Ret.) milton@calnek.com 306-717-8737
Milton Calnek wrote:
Sorry, I missed the question. I'm severely confused and I don't know what I'm talking about.
My friend, stop misquoting me. See http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2008-November/067393.html
Regards, Vandaman.
on 11-7-2008 12:09 PM Vandaman spake the following:
Milton Calnek wrote:
Sorry, I missed the question. I'm severely confused and I don't know what I'm talking about.
Talk about misquoting ... The second sentence above doesn't seem to be in the original posting
My friend, stop misquoting me. See http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2008-November/067393.html
Regards, Vandaman.
Vandaman wrote:
Milton Calnek wrote:
Sorry, I missed the question. I'm severely confused and I don't know what I'm talking about.
My friend, stop misquoting me. See http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2008-November/067393.html
Are you leading by example here?
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Vandaman wrote:
You are the guy who is having a bit of a moan on the Fedora list about KDE. How many patches have you contributed to Fedora or to CentOS? This is open source after all, you have access to the source.
Not every user is a contributor for development, documentation, translation, bug-reporting, promotion or donations. And nobody is demanding contributions, if you're an end-user that is fine too.
I think it is important to understand that when you are a user you _can_ contribute, but if you choose not to participate in the community people might not be interested. Outsiders seldom cause change.
Also, if you're not "able" to contribute or participate (for whatever reason) I don't see good reasons to use a bleeding-edge distribution that thrives on development and feedback.
-
Dag Wieers -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Linuxguy123 -
Milton Calnek -
Phil Schaffner -
Rubin -
Scott Silva -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Vandaman