[CentOS-devel] CentOS CS & GFS packages

Thu Jul 21 23:11:36 UTC 2005
John Newbigin <jnewbigin at ict.swin.edu.au>

OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at

The packages are currently signed with the CentOS-2 key (on a CentOS-2) 
box which for some reason makes rpm -K on a CentOS-3 box unhappy.  If 
they are not suitable I can make some changes.

These have not been compared in any way to the Red Hat shipped versions. 
  I have a feeling that Red Hat don't ship binaries, but perhaps they 
just kept it hushed.  I don't know anyone who uses the RH GFS.

I have also included perl-Net-SSLeay from Dag's EL3 repo.  This is 
required for some of the fencing scripts like iLO.


Tru Huynh wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
>>Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the
>>>$arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run
>>>createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to
>>>add to users yum configs instead of two.  How does that sound? (Since
>>>for CentOS-4 they work together)
>>I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are 
>>separate.  It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red 
>>Hat Way'?
>>If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs 
> I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
> The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare
> the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
> I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
> cheers,
> Tru
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia