Hi
Is there any ETA for the SRPM's from the base tree of 5.6? I need to get my hands on the src for the centos-release package as i have to rebuilt it to prevent the repo definitions from being included.
I see the src's for the updates RPM's but not the base.
many thanks
On 9 April 2011 23:42, Tom Brown tom@ng23.net wrote:
Hi
Is there any ETA for the SRPM's from the base tree of 5.6? I need to get my hands on the src for the centos-release package as i have to rebuilt it to prevent the repo definitions from being included.
I see the src's for the updates RPM's but not the base.
many thanks
As part of my build process I disable repos like that (and others that insert themselves in /etc/yum.repos.d) by echoing in during kickstart the line reposdir=/etc/yum.repos.d/custom to yum.conf.
That way if I do have a need of a repo I can pop the file in there... but meanwhile updates that pop a .repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d have no effect on my systems.
Could similar work for you without having to rebuild centos-release ?
James
I added "exclude=*releases" for every repo that uses them (base/os, updates, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo, ....) since I use my own local copy of those repos. Yum just skips them.
Tom Brown wrote:
Hi
Is there any ETA for the SRPM's from the base tree of 5.6? I need to get my hands on the src for the centos-release package as i have to rebuilt it to prevent the repo definitions from being included.
I see the src's for the updates RPM's but not the base.
many thanks _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
I added "exclude=*releases" for every repo that uses them (base/os, updates, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo, ....) since I use my own local copy of those repos. Yum just skips them.
Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding. I add that line in any *.repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d/ folder, as an option for every repository definition in those files where repository has "releases" rpms.
Ljubomir
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote on Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:53:54 +0200:
Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding. I add that line in any *.repo file in /etc/yum.repos.d/ folder, as an option for every repository definition in those files where repository has "releases" rpms.
I don't understand the problem. If you edit a .repo file it is usually not overwritten, the new repo file is saved as .rpmnew. So, I think this creates only a problem in the case that you completely remove a .repo file. What am I misunderstanding? (Sorry for the pun, I think I'm mostly talking to Tom ;-)
Kai
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:42:41 +0100 Tom Brown tom@ng23.net wrote:
Hi
Is there any ETA for the SRPM's from the base tree of 5.6? I need to get my hands on the src for the centos-release package as i have to rebuilt it to prevent the repo definitions from being included.
I see the src's for the updates RPM's but not the base.
I'm hazarding a guess here - that the os/{i386,x86_64}/CentOS/*.rpm's that have 'centos' in the name have had changes made for CentOS. The others have not and the sources are available from upstream at eg
http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS...
Can anyone please confirm/deny that?
I looked at a couple of examples including eg httpd -
rpm -qpi 5.6/os/x86_64/CentOS/rpm-4.4.2.3-22.el5.x86_64.rpm
Name : rpm Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 4.4.2.3 Vendor: CentOS Release : 22.el5 Build Date: Sun Mar 6 13:40:33 2011 Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: builder10.centos.org Group : System Environment/Base Source RPM: rpm-4.4.2.3-22.el5.src.rpm Size : 3754140 License: GPLv2+ Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue Mar 22 09:37:08 2011, Key ID a8a447dce8562897 URL : http://www.rpm.org/ Summary : The RPM package management system ...
... so it's built from rpm-4.4.2.3-22.el5.src.rpm ... the same _name_ as the upstream vendor's source.
Oddly, the 5.5 binary carries 'centos' in it's release field:
5.5/os/x86_64/CentOS/httpd-2.2.3-43.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
... so the good devs had to make changes there, yet not for 5.6!!!???
Cheers
Bob
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:40:25 +1000 Bob Hepple bhepple@promptu.com wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 23:42:41 +0100 Tom Brown tom@ng23.net wrote:
Hi
Is there any ETA for the SRPM's from the base tree of 5.6? I need to get my hands on the src for the centos-release package as i have to rebuilt it to prevent the repo definitions from being included.
I see the src's for the updates RPM's but not the base.
I'm hazarding a guess here - that the os/{i386,x86_64}/CentOS/*.rpm's that have 'centos' in the name have had changes made for CentOS. The others have not and the sources are available from upstream at eg
http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS...
Can anyone please confirm/deny that?
Oh well, so much for that idea! According to the release notes (http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.6) there is a list of packages modified by centos - and that includes httpd. So the absence of 'centos' in the release string does _not_ mean that the package is unmodified (ie it's merely re-built).
Sigh!!! Just have to wait for the centos SRPMS then
Cheers
Bob
I'm hazarding a guess here - that the os/{i386,x86_64}/CentOS/*.rpm's that have 'centos' in the name have had changes made for CentOS. The others have not and the sources are available from upstream at eg
http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS...
Can anyone please confirm/deny that?
Oh well, so much for that idea! According to the release notes (http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.6) there is a list of packages modified by centos - and that includes httpd. So the absence of 'centos' in the release string does _not_ mean that the package is unmodified (ie it's merely re-built).
Sigh!!! Just have to wait for the centos SRPMS then
for me i do remove the repo's during kickstart however during an upgrade they'll come back unless they are removed from the package.
I have just rebuilt the 5.5 release package to not have them and made the changes to make it appear as the 5.6 release package so for me all good.
thanks
On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Tom Brown wrote:
I'm hazarding a guess here - that the os/{i386,x86_64}/CentOS/*.rpm's that have 'centos' in the name have had changes made for CentOS. The others have not and the sources are available from upstream at eg
http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS...
Can anyone please confirm/deny that?
Oh well, so much for that idea! According to the release notes (http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.6) there is a list of packages modified by centos - and that includes httpd. So the absence of 'centos' in the release string does _not_ mean that the package is unmodified (ie it's merely re-built).
Sigh!!! Just have to wait for the centos SRPMS then
for me i do remove the repo's during kickstart however during an upgrade they'll come back unless they are removed from the package.
Instead of removing the unwanted .repo files, replace them with empty files. That way an upgrade should just result in a .rpmnew file being created.
Tom Brown wrote on Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:08:48 +0100:
because by removing them from the centos-release package and rebuilding it they are not there in the first place.
Yeah, but you have to do that all the time (e.g. with each update). Replacing with empty files is a one-time operation.
Kai
I got frustrated with having to edit my repo files every time an update came along to the release package, so I looked for "a better way". What I found was http://www.gurulabs.com/goodies/YUM_automatic_local_mirror.php, which gave me the clues I needed to have my local repositories added to the mirror list dynamically. I hacked the script a bit to make it work with CentOS and fit my situation a bit better, but it's written in Perl so it should not be too hard to figure out.
Once set up, all you need to do is point the DNS name mirrorlist.centos.org to your local server. I've used manual /etc/hosts entries and DNS, both work just fine. I've been using it for a couple of years now with good results.
As always, YMMV.
On 04/11/2011 12:46 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Oh well, so much for that idea! According to the release notes (http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.6) there is a list of packages modified by centos - and that includes httpd. So the absence of 'centos' in the release string does _not_ mean that the package is unmodified (ie it's merely re-built).
you said httpd but looked at rpm :)
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
Reason why the srpms are not in the tree at release time : it saves us all about 4.3 TiB of data to mirrors pre-release.
- KB
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 04/11/2011 12:46 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Oh well, so much for that idea! According to the release notes (http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.6) there is a list of packages modified by centos - and that includes httpd. So the absence of 'centos' in the release string does _not_ mean that the package is unmodified (ie it's merely re-built).
you said httpd but looked at rpm :)
hoo boy, I got myself into a right muddle. So OK - if it has 'centos' in the release number, then there were changes from upstream - otherwise you can use the upstream vendors source package!!! Phew, glad someone around here has their head screwed on - thanks for setting me right, KB!!
While I'm here - thanks to the whole CentOS team for a great effort on 5.6. I installed it on a laptop for the wife and she loves it!! For myself - once I've the sources get here I can start our patch and re-compile for our in-house discless clusters.
Cheers
Bob
On 04/12/2011 02:28 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
While I'm here - thanks to the whole CentOS team for a great effort on 5.6. I installed it on a laptop for the wife and she loves it!! For myself - once I've the sources get here I can start our patch and re-compile for our in-house discless clusters.
You are welcome! I must admit that at one point, I didn't think there were many people appreciative of the efforts we were putting in!
- KB
On 12 April 2011 13:48, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 04/12/2011 02:28 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
While I'm here - thanks to the whole CentOS team for a great effort on 5.6. I installed it on a laptop for the wife and she loves it!! For myself - once I've the sources get here I can start our patch and re-compile for our in-house discless clusters.
You are welcome! I must admit that at one point, I didn't think there were many people appreciative of the efforts we were putting in!
Then let me add my thanks to the list. I upgraded two servers to 5.6 using yum yesterday and it all went without a hitch.
Thank you for your work.
Dave...
On 4/12/11 7:48 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/12/2011 02:28 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
While I'm here - thanks to the whole CentOS team for a great effort on 5.6. I installed it on a laptop for the wife and she loves it!! For myself - once I've the sources get here I can start our patch and re-compile for our in-house discless clusters.
You are welcome! I must admit that at one point, I didn't think there were many people appreciative of the efforts we were putting in!
Perhaps you badly missed the point of the postings here... Which have pretty much been that everyone did want this to get out because they do appreciate it.
Karanbir Singh wrote on 04/11/2011 06:58 AM:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ).
More like 72 hours and still no 5.6/os/SRPMS/ in evidence. Did the valve not get turned on?
Phil
On 04/13/2011 11:51 AM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote on 04/11/2011 06:58 AM:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ).
More like 72 hours and still no 5.6/os/SRPMS/ in evidence. Did the valve not get turned on?
They are definitely in there, just slow.
- KB
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:23:51 -0300 Filipe Rosset rosset.filipe@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/13/2011 07:54 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
They are definitely in there, just slow.
- KB
Hi guys,
Still without SRPM's in 5.6/os/SRPMS/
They just started to appear this morning (UTC+1000) - but I can't see httpd, initscripts, etc yet
For future reference, it seems to have taken about 7 days for the first lot to emerge on the mirrors from when the upload was started.
Cheers
Bob
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
Does anyone see them elsewhere?
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
Does anyone see them elsewhere?
Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS
In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm
It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.)
-- Don Krause
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700 Don Krause dkrause@optivus.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
Does anyone see them elsewhere?
Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS
In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm
It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.)
Don,
I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my local AUS mirrors have been up to date with
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
for some days now:
http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!!
Cheers
Bob
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700 Don Krause dkrause@optivus.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
Does anyone see them elsewhere?
Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS
In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm
It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.)
Don,
I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my local AUS mirrors have been up to date with
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/
for some days now:
http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!!
Cheers
Bob
Thanks Bob,
It doesn't appear to be me, as much as kernel.org. Their webpage http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D has nothing newer than Dec 14th either..
Something must be broke (or really slow) out there.
Time to switch to a new mirror I guess....
Take Care! -- Don Krause
On 04/21/2011 12:47 AM, Don Krause wrote:
It doesn't appear to be me, as much as kernel.org. Their webpage http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D has nothing newer than Dec 14th either..
Something must be broke (or really slow) out there.
Broke yes, but in a good way. No need to switch from kernel.org!
Also the reason why you are seeing some srpms but not others is that there is a second task that was running, to bring in srpms shared from the 5.5/ tree ( os + updates ) that are still needed in 5.6/
Its the new packages that are in 5.6/ which were not in eithe 5.5/os or 5.5/updates that are not on the mirrors at this point.
- KB
On Apr 21, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/21/2011 12:47 AM, Don Krause wrote:
It doesn't appear to be me, as much as kernel.org. Their webpage http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D has nothing newer than Dec 14th either..
Something must be broke (or really slow) out there.
Broke yes, but in a good way. No need to switch from kernel.org!
Also the reason why you are seeing some srpms but not others is that there is a second task that was running, to bring in srpms shared from the 5.5/ tree ( os + updates ) that are still needed in 5.6/
Its the new packages that are in 5.6/ which were not in eithe 5.5/os or 5.5/updates that are not on the mirrors at this point.
- KB
Thanks Karanbir,
Appreciate all your hard work!
-- Don Krause Head Systems Geek, Waver of Deceased Chickens. Optivus Proton Therapy, Inc. P.O. Box 608 Loma Linda, California 92354 909.799.8327 Tel 909.799.8366 Fax dkrause@optivus.com www.optivus.com "This message represents the official view of the voices in my head."
On 04/21/2011 12:18 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
Yes, you are right. Amongst the various tests, there is one that checks for dupe packages, and we have 2 anaconda srpms this time, the i386 and x86_64 are built from identical srpm's; but I had to bump version on one arch, without needing to do that on the other. So there are 2 anaconda-srpm in the SRPMS/ repo, causing the test to fail and that entire lot not going through. I like the test, and would like to keep it in place, so will do a force-pass for now and that should see the packages go through at some point today.
- KB
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:30:37 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 04/21/2011 12:18 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
Yes, you are right. Amongst the various tests, there is one that checks for dupe packages, and we have 2 anaconda srpms this time, the i386 and x86_64 are built from identical srpm's; but I had to bump version on one arch, without needing to do that on the other. So there are 2 anaconda-srpm in the SRPMS/ repo, causing the test to fail and that entire lot not going through. I like the test, and would like to keep it in place, so will do a force-pass for now and that should see the packages go through at some point today.
I'll look out them.
Thanks KB, you're legend!
On 04/21/2011 06:41 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:30:37 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 04/21/2011 12:18 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
Yes, you are right. Amongst the various tests, there is one that checks for dupe packages, and we have 2 anaconda srpms this time, the i386 and x86_64 are built from identical srpm's; but I had to bump version on one arch, without needing to do that on the other. So there are 2 anaconda-srpm in the SRPMS/ repo, causing the test to fail and that entire lot not going through. I like the test, and would like to keep it in place, so will do a force-pass for now and that should see the packages go through at some point today.
I'll look out them.
Thanks KB, you're legend!
Hi guys,
I'm still not seeing some SRPMs (eg httpd-2.2.3-45.el5) Any news about it Karanbir?
Regards,
On 04/25/2011 09:16 AM, Filipe Rosset wrote:
On 04/21/2011 06:41 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:30:37 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 04/21/2011 12:18 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
Yes, you are right. Amongst the various tests, there is one that checks for dupe packages, and we have 2 anaconda srpms this time, the i386 and x86_64 are built from identical srpm's; but I had to bump version on one arch, without needing to do that on the other. So there are 2 anaconda-srpm in the SRPMS/ repo, causing the test to fail and that entire lot not going through. I like the test, and would like to keep it in place, so will do a force-pass for now and that should see the packages go through at some point today.
I'll look out them.
Thanks KB, you're legend!
Hi guys,
I'm still not seeing some SRPMs (eg httpd-2.2.3-45.el5) Any news about it Karanbir?
I have pushed what I think are all of the SRPMS for os and updates.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:59:47 -0300 Filipe Rosset rosset.filipe@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/25/2011 10:35 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
I have pushed what I think are all of the SRPMS for os and updates.
Great, thank you!
Just to close this one off - I am now seeing all the SRPMS that I need on the Australian mirrors.
Thanks guys!!
Bob
-
Bob Hepple -
Dave Cross -
Don Krause -
Filipe Rosset -
James Hogarth -
Jay Leafey -
Johnny Hughes -
Kai Schaetzl -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Phil Schaffner -
Robert Nichols -
Tom Brown