[CentOS-devel] CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

Sat Feb 19 15:02:49 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/19/2011 07:40 AM, js wrote:
> Le 19/02/11 17:23, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
>> On 02/19/2011 05:49 AM, js wrote:
>>> Le 19/02/11 15:42, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
>>>> On 02/18/2011 04:58 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>>> It seems Red Hat is not releasing media for the 4.9 release, so this
>>>>> seems to be just a bunch of updates that is going into the tree.  Based
>>>>> on the SRPMS listed here:
>>>>> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os/SRPMS/
>>>>> And the current CentOS 4.8+updates SRPMS here:
>>>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/os/SRPMS/
>>>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/updates/SRPMS/
>>>>> This is the list of SRPMS I have started building:
>>>>> autofs-4.1.3-240.src.rpm
>>>>> autofs5-5.0.1-0.rc2.114.src.rpm
>>>>> bash-3.0-27.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> bind-9.2.4-37.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> centos-release-4-9.src.rpm
>>>>> comps-4AS-0.20110202.src.rpm
>>>>> coreutils-5.2.1-37.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> device-mapper-1.02.28-3.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> device-mapper-multipath-0.4.5-42.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> glibc-2.3.4-2.54.src.rpm
>>>>> gnome-volume-manager-1.1.0-9.src.rpm
>>>>> hal-0.4.2-9.el4_8.src.rpm
>>>>> httpd-2.0.52-47.ent.centos4.src.rpm
>>>>> hwdata-0.146.33.EL-19.src.rpm
>>>>> iscsi-initiator-utils-
>>>>> kernel-2.6.9-100.EL.src.rpm
>>>>> kernel-utils-2.4-23.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> lvm2-2.02.42-9.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> net-snmp-5.1.2-20.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> nfs-utils-1.0.6-94.EL4.src.rpm
>>>>> nss_ldap-253-16.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> numactl-0.6.4-1.44.src.rpm
>>>>> procps-3.2.3-8.21.src.rpm
>>>>> python-2.3.4-14.9.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> quota-3.12-9.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> redhat-release-4AS-10.src.rpm
>>>>> rhnlib-2.1.4-17.el4_8.1.src.rpm
>>>>> rhpl-0.148.6-2.src.rpm
>>>>> rpmdb-redhat-4-0.20110202.src.rpm
>>>>> samba-3.0.33-0.29.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> sendmail-8.13.1-6.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> sysklogd-1.4.1-30.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> sysstat-5.0.5-27.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> system-config-lvm-1.1.4-4.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> system-config-network-
>>>>> systemtap-1.3-5.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> tmpwatch-2.9.1-1.el4.2.src.rpm
>>>>> udev-039-10.30.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> up2date-4.9.1-29.el4.centos.src.rpm
>>>>> util-linux-2.12a-28.el4.src.rpm
>>>>> xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.66.src.rpm
>>>>> If there is more than one SRPM of the same package, I only took the
>>>>> latest SRPM.
>>>>> Can I get a couple of you guys to verify my SRPM list?
>>>>> Note:  The Red Hat FTP site is all updates since the release of RHEL
>>>>> 4.0. The CentOS 4.8 SRPMS are the ones on the 4.8 ISOs and the updates
>>>>> are those SRPMS updated since the release of 4.8.  We are only
>>>>> interested in the newest SRPMS for each app.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Johnny Hughes
>>>> I hear crickets ... where are all the community people who want to help?
>>> Hello,
>>> Ok, so "Help" for you is to check if your rpm list is correct?
>>> It's better to say "close the light when I leave my office, thanks".
>>> I hope it's a joke, really :-)
>> So you don't really want to help, you just want us to tell you how to
>> build CentOS.
> Hello,
> I know that "open" a project is not easy, it's time consuming yes.
> But it seems nobody here cares about a good way to work in team.
> You have a guru, and "the others".
> Let me take a simple example:
> Today I have servers, can free cpu to compile stuff, can test build iso 
> process, can test installation, validity
> of rpms etc..
> How, today, can I help?
> I don't want to sign packages, no .. only add a few time to help, no 
> more, no less:
> There is no "security" risk to do so.
> If you think the "centos community" is some guys who count the number of 
> srpms in a ftp server; ok,
> we can close the discussion; talk to a wall is a waste of time.
> I hope you will understand my thinking: I know the work you do, and I'm 
> glad to use it,
> but it does not solve this particular problem.

Have you ever even seen the fedora project (the absolute most open
project in the world, BTW) all people to compile SRPMS on their
computers for inclusion into the project.

Absolutely not ...

They would NEVER allow someone to compile binaries somewhere else and
ask that they somehow be included in the distribution.  That is just
crazy talk.

If you are one of the chosen people who are allowed to actually submit
packages to the official fedora build system, that is one thing ...
there are a few of those people.  Not everyone who wants to is allowed
to be the lead for fedora packages.  See if they will let you be the
fedora lead for glibc or the kernel.  And this is the most open project
out there.

I have no idea what you know about building packages because I have
never met you, how does it help me to know that you can (or can not)
build the packages on a non-controlled environment (non controlled by me)?

We have build systems that we use, we have a controlled environment on
those build systems.  The are setup so that only specific people have
access. Those machines and are owned by donors who expect us to control
the access on the machines, etc.

If you want to test the binaries that we have built before release, that
is what the QA team does.  There are currently 25 people in that group.
 We might ask for more people to join that group.

But none of that happens until we fix the build issues that we have
after we build and test the packages.   Building them on a non
centos.org machine is not an option.  Just like would not allow you to
build a fedora package on a non-fedora machine.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110219/72d175f7/attachment-0005.sig>