Some oddities in the data 1) Some odd rebuilds rebuilds of RHEL6.0 beta packages: fence-virt-0.2.1-3.el6.src.rpm libvpd-2.1.1-2.el6.src.rpm A rhev build thrown in? vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm A number of non-kernel same-nvr rebuilds: subversion-1.6.11-7.el6.src.rpm dhcp-4.1.1-34.P1.el6_4.1.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-7.el6.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-8.el6_5.src.rpm zsh-4.3.10-9.el6.src.rpm 2) Some kernels seemingly missing rebuilds kernel-2.6.32-358.46.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.46.2.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.48.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-358.49.1.el6.src.rpm kernel-2.6.32-431.37.1.el6.src.rpm Not a big deal if they weren't rebuilt. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. 3) A number of intermittent customizations I suspect these are all normal cases of needing to tweak something one time to get a build through or to solve a qa issue. Again, just want to make sure I'm not missing something ipa librsvg2 openscap openssl pango qemu-kvm (* see 4) subversion virt-who 4) qemu-kvm ordering I see 5 custom rebuilds of qemu-kvm, but their n-v-r-s all sort lower than they should. E.g. qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6.centos.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.0.1.el6_4.9.src.rpm all sort lower than: qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.2.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.3.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.5.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.6.src.rpm qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.9.src.rpm At this point I'm assuming that the first set are all rebuilds of the second and that I should manually reorder these for the import (or add some very special case hacks to the script). On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Mike McLean <mikem at imponderable.org> wrote: > I've generated my own list of ordered sources. Following are the > techniques, scripts, and data. Comments or corrections on any of these > would be most appreciated. > > Sources of Data > 1) ftp.redhat.com > all *.src.rpm files under redhat/linux/enterprise/6*/en/os/SRPMS > 2) vault.centos.org > all *.src.rpm files under 6.*/{os,updates,fasttrack} > > If anyone feels I'm starting from the wrong data, please say so. I debated > about including the fasttrack dirs, but as this point I've convinced myself > that it is probably correct, or at worst harmless). > > I wrote a script to do all the heavy lifting. For args it expects files > containing lists of paths to source rpms (there are too many srpms involved > to pass them directly on the command line). The script identifies srpms > with identical contents by comparing the list of files and their hashs (so > a centos rebuilt srpm with no changes is considered a duplicate of the rh > one even though some of the headers change (e.g. vendor, buildtime). > > The script sorts first by package name, then by version-release *with dist > tag removed*, then by rh vs centos, then by full version-release. An srpm > is considered a centos rpm if either the vendor is centos, or a centos dist > tag appears in the release, otherwise it is considered an rh srpm. > > I have posted the script and its current output here: > https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.py > https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/centos_srpm_sort2.log > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org >> > <mailto:johnny at centos.org>> wrote: >> > >> > As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported >> into >> > git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will be >> processed >> > like CentOS-7 ones are now. >> > >> > We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through >> 6.4+updates >> > initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing right >> now). >> > >> > So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live at >> this >> > location: >> > >> > http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/ >> > >> > The two lists so far are: >> > >> > EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt >> > centos-6-srpms-modified.txt >> > >> > 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 >> in >> > their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is the >> order >> > they will be imported into git. What is important for history is >> that >> > (for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0 >> > through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for >> > 389-ds-base would be: >> > >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm >> > 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm >> > >> > All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com >> > <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported. >> > >> > >> > I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in >> > the list have the wrong dist tag in the name. >> > For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be >> > bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you >> > confirm? >> >> Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos >> name. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS-devel mailing list >> CentOS-devel at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20141114/89a58374/attachment-0008.html>