I've adjusted the script to work around the qemu sorting and report a bit more info. all here: https://mikem.fedorapeople.org/ (script has been replaced, the current log is centos_srpm_sort2c.log. One of the changes is that I had it report when package names are completely missing from one side or the other (as opposed to just missing a build somewhere). This leads to more oddities 5) vdsm-4.9-63.el6.src.rpm Centos has just one build of vdsm, which does not appear on ftp.rh.c. The rh ftp only has vdsm sources under RHEV and RHS, and nothing quite so old as 4.9-63. Does anyone know the story behind this build? Was it pulled in for a reason, or is this just a case of an accidental ftp posting that got rebuilt before someone noticed and removed it? 6) a number of package names unique to rhel Many of these make sense. Heck, they probably all have good reasons, but I figure as long as we're here it would be nice for folks to have a look and make sure. Most seem to fall into the following categories: - rhn-related stuff (e.g. subscription-manager) - rh release/branding related stuff (e.g. redhat-release-*) - arch specific stuff (e.g. s390utils) - eal4 cert related (cc-eal4-config-rhel62) A few seem to related to specialized hardware. I'm not 100% sure why that excludes them from CentOS, but here is that list: hpwdt libibverbs-rocee libmlx4-rocee Finally there are the ones I'm really not sure about. I suspect that all of these have a good reason for exclusion. I suspect in most cases it is because they are specific to one of the more specialized variants of rhel (e.g. sap, sap-hana) compat-gcc-295 compat-sap-c++ qpid-qmf sapconf snd-hda vhostmd On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Mike McLean <mikem at imponderable.org> wrote: > 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/20141117/c9df33c3/attachment-0008.html>