date:20110407

On 05/04/11 01:29, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Brian Mathis
 brian.mathis+cen...@betteradmin.com wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
 On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

 OK guys. Why don't you fork the CentOS project and build your own???

 Why don't ANYBODY fork CentOS project? What are you/they waiting for?
 Whining is easy, build something on your own.

 Too strongly stated.  I am aware of at least two private
 rebuild efforts that I have advised over the rough spots in
 the last 4 months.  But those efforts have not sought to
 replicate CentOS, but rather to 'scratch an itch' with a
 different goal than CentOS goals of replicating a rebuild of
 the upstream sources, with needed trademark and branding
 alterations, seeking binary identical-ness with all that the
 upstream ships insofar as possible

 But re-producing CentOS through a fork is just not sensible,
 because CentOS is not just a pile of packages meeting some
 standard [it is also hard work to no obvious new good purpose]

 CentOS is also the mirror network; it is the mailing lists; it
 is the builders being willing to ignore the temptation to
 release a 'rough draft' at the expense of breaking the
 reputation (justified by past releases) to quiet perhaps ten
 people whining for something, anything, at the expense of
 potentially harming millions of installations

 There is a playpen for people who want the latest and greatest
 with a six month release cycle that use the RPM packaging
 system and the yum updater. But it not named CentOS

 -- Russ herrold


 Russ,

 Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear:

 The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or whining as
 you put it) is:
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
***LACK OF INFORMATION***
 about what is going on.

 No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months.

 All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular
 updates about the process.  Something like Working on xyz package but
 ran into this problem.  Still have to look at packages abc and def
 would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here.
 It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand
 that.

 
 and prolong development even further..
 

Wow!  I didn't know the hard core CentOS supporters was so sensitive to
delays that they would complain about developers spending 30 minutes every
now and then to write a status update.  Their time must be precious ...

What happened to the It comes when it comes mantra?


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 05/04/11 01:29, John R. Dennison wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 07:22:43PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:

 All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular
 updates about the process.  Something like Working on xyz package but
 ran into this problem.  Still have to look at packages abc and def
 would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here.
 It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand
 that.
 
   Couple questions for you, if you wouldn't mind?
 
   Do you complain to Redhat about similar issues?  Do you complain
   to your sales rep about when the next release is going to drop,
   or what the hold-up on a release is?
 
   Assuming that you're a customer you would be quite dissatisfied
   with their reply, or to be more accurate, their lack of a reply.
 
   Why must CentOS be held to a different set of standards than the
   upstream?  Redhat posts NO status updates and publishes NO
   timelines but yet CentOS gets no end of grief over their lack of
   the same.

Maybe because CentOS and Red Hat are different entities with different
goals?  Maybe that Red Hat has a much bigger responsibility for their stock
holders and that any public exposure of RHEL related things might impact
the market speculations which again could hurt the stock price you
probably get the point ... fact is: CentOS do not have such constraints,
being a community project.

And the parts where Red Hat is and can be open about the development phase
is in Fedora.  Most of you know by now that RHEL6 is based on a Fedora
12/13 base.

   I do personally wish that there would be more status updates
   from TPTB but to be demanding of more updates is ridiculous.

I don't interpret it as a demand, more like a wish for a more open
development process and progress - which is not a unreasonable request for
a community project.  There is nothing bad about voicing this.  And I am
convinced Brian is correct about that these regular explosions threads with
when does it come would be considerably reduced with more transparency in
the development process.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 05/04/11 00:51, Jimmy Bradley wrote:
   I've seen the posts over and over again about when is 6 going to
 be out? I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os
 available.
   My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it
 really matter?  5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it?

Maybe because the RHEL/CentOS 5.5 kernel got several security issues already?

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0017.html

For some of us CentOS users, this is critical.  Especially when there has
been no security updates for CentOS 5 since early January.

It was the right decision to postpone CentOS 6 to get CentOS 5.6 out first.
 But it still have taken a lot longer than what we've been used to.

And for people going to do fresh installs of CentOS, it would be most
likely better to aim directly for CentOS 6 than CentOS 5.5/5.6.  But the
waiting without knowing what to expect when, that is a frustration
amplifier, especially for those having project deadlines.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] KVM Host Disk Performance

2011-04-07 Thread John Hodrien

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Scott Robbins wrote:

 Not all that unique, but a bit better--I think it's
 VolumeGroup00/lvm_root, VolumeGroup00/lvm_swap, and things like that.

 (Keeping both LVs in the same VG by default.)

As far as I know it's much better than that:

The volume group by default with EL6 is vg_$HOSTNAME (with some characters
stripped).

Even EL5 only created one VG.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Tom Yates

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Hendrik wrote:

 Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality?

I've been watching the C6/5.6/4.9 delay debate quietly for some time now, 
and I've seen what I thought were valid positions and intelligent comments 
on both sides of the debate.

But that wasn't one of them.  I had a really sharp intake of breath when I 
read it, and I'm pleased to see that several others also think it's beyond 
the pale.

Please, don't say stuff like that again.  Not here.  It's just out of 
order, really it is.


-- 

   Tom Yates  -  http://www.teaparty.net
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Ljubomir Ljubojevic

Russell Jones wrote:
 A bigger number? :-)
 
 On 4/6/2011 7:52 AM, compdoc wrote:
 What the hell is so special about CentOS 6?
 indeed

Just newer kernel and newer core packages that can drive newer 
applications. CentOS 5.5 kernel and core packages are 3-4 years old in 
the (Linux) world that dramatically changed since then.

P.S. Please write your answers in the bottom/end of the letter, not at 
the beginning. It's common practice for a long time.

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread John Hodrien

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

 Just newer kernel and newer core packages that can drive newer
 applications. CentOS 5.5 kernel and core packages are 3-4 years old in
 the (Linux) world that dramatically changed since then.

I wouldn't refer to the 5.5 kernel as 3-4 years old as there are significant
backports to the EL5 kernel such that 5.5's kernel is measurably different to
5.0, and even further away from 2.6.18.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Intel 82599 driver?

2011-04-07 Thread Peter Kjellström

On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 07:07:59 pm Lars Hecking wrote:
  This does not mean it's not supported it's just not in the pci-id
  database.
  
  You could try to update just the pci-db with:
   # update-pciids
 
  Cool!
 
 05:00.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82599EB 10 Gigabit TN
 Network Connection (rev 01)
 
  We've used 82599 on the normal 5.5 kernel no problems (2.0.44-k2). With
  the 5.6 kernel (-238) you get: 2.0.84-k2
 
  Does not seem to work with our variant. CentOS driver:
 
 ixgbe: Intel(R) 10 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver - version 2.0.44-k2
 ixgbe: Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Intel Corporation.

There are more than one NIC-model with 82599EB and evidently not all work with 
the CentOS driver. What we're using successfully is X520-DA2:

 Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit Network Connection (rev 01)

What do you have?

/Peter


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Intel 82599 driver?

2011-04-07 Thread Lars Hecking


 There are more than one NIC-model with 82599EB and evidently not all work 
 with 
 the CentOS driver. What we're using successfully is X520-DA2:
 
  Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit Network Connection (rev 01)
 
 What do you have?

 http://www.intel.com/support/network/sb/cs-012904.htm

 PCI id 151c = X520-T2.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Anton Parol

Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like that 
are NOT acceptable.
I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork and 
make your own efforts.

__
Anton Parol
Customer Services * Orc Software


-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of 
Hendrik
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:59 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011/4/6 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org:
 On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.

 And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.


 No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the
 efforts going into the solution.

 Really, try stopping reading for a few weeks. You might surprise yourself.

Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality?

--
Hendrik
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



This e-mail is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. It 
is intended only for the addressees. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
kindly notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and delete the message from 
your system.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Rudi Ahlers

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Anton Parol anton.pa...@orcsoftware.com wrote:
 Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
 Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like 
 that are NOT acceptable.
 I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

 CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork and 
 make your own efforts.




Well said :)

-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Johnny Hughes

On 04/06/2011 03:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:
 
 On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed
 to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information
 is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all.

 That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.
 
 And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.
 

The proper solution is for you to stop using CentOS.  You are obviously
not happy with it.

We provide it for you (as is, when we can) to use if it meets your
needs. if it does not, then you are free to use SOMETHING ELSE.  You are
also free to take your petty little quips to another mailing list.

I guarantee that if I came to your mailing lists and posted the bullcrap
there that you post here, you would not be appreciative.

Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
to this list.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

2011-04-07 Thread Timothy Murphy

Les Mikesell wrote:

 If anyone can suggest a simpler way of installing CentOS
 on a machine without a CD drive I should be interested to hear.

 
 I thought I did that a long time ago.  Put the small boot.img file that is
 in the /images on the CD or DVD isos on a USB drive (you can use a
 loopback mount to get it if you can't find a place to download it
 separately), boot from it, pick nfs as the install method, and point it to
 the directory containing the CD
 iso images that you have under an NFS export on another box.

Sorry, Les.
I did read your suggestion, and it was indeed on my list of options,
if running Network Installation from the Live USB stick didn't work.
And I have noted it for CentOS-6, since apparently
Network Installation from CentOS Live CD will no longer be available.
(Why not, as a matter of interest?)

But when I said simple I really meant 
following official methods and instructions given by Them, 
the CentOS powers-that-be.

I assume that the lack of a CD drive on the HP micro-server
is a sign of things to come,
so I would hope there would be an official method of installing CentOS
on such a machine.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Max Hetrick

On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.

This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go 
away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than 
others trying to open up communications between a projects members and 
the developers.

This is the exact reason I quit helping out on the wiki, and now after 
reading all the drama on this mailing list, I think it just might be 
time to unsubscribe from this one as well.

Regards,
Max
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

On 4/7/11 7:47 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:

 If anyone can suggest a simpler way of installing CentOS
 on a machine without a CD drive I should be interested to hear.


 I thought I did that a long time ago.  Put the small boot.img file that is
 in the /images on the CD or DVD isos on a USB drive (you can use a
 loopback mount to get it if you can't find a place to download it
 separately), boot from it, pick nfs as the install method, and point it to
 the directory containing the CD
 iso images that you have under an NFS export on another box.

 Sorry, Les.
 I did read your suggestion, and it was indeed on my list of options,
 if running Network Installation from the Live USB stick didn't work.
 And I have noted it for CentOS-6, since apparently
 Network Installation from CentOS Live CD will no longer be available.
 (Why not, as a matter of interest?)

 But when I said simple I really meant
 following official methods and instructions given by Them,
 the CentOS powers-that-be.

 I assume that the lack of a CD drive on the HP micro-server
 is a sign of things to come,
 so I would hope there would be an official method of installing CentOS
 on such a machine.

I don't get it.  That's the whole point of the boot.img, which is made to 
simply 
dd onto a usb device.  And having booted from that, there is nothing different 
than any other way of booting into the installer except that you have to tell 
it 
where the install media is.  It is exactly the same as if you had booted the 
install CD or DVD with 'linux askmethod' at the boot prompt to get that 
question.  No special methods or instructions needed, and the only thing that 
won't be obvious until you have done it is that the installer knows how to work 
with the CD iso images saved in a directory.

-- 
Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?


Hello,

I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the 
following problem. From what I read
-Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that 
flag on in the following. Any ideas?

  gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d  -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude  -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__ -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include /home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -m32   -DKBUILD_STR(s)=#s -DKBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)  -DKBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain) -DDEBUG_HASH=57 -DDEBUG_HASH2=38 -c -o 
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend':
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume':
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect
make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2

Thanks,
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Radu Gheorghiu

On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go
 away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than
 others trying to open up communications between a projects members and
 the developers.

Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS 
in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right 
direction.
I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm 
looking for alternatives.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?

2011-04-07 Thread Rudi Ahlers

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
 Hello,

 I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the
 following problem. From what I read
 -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that
 flag on in the following. Any ideas?

   gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d  -nostdinc
 -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem
 /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
 include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
 include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot
 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include
 /home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h
 -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding
 -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
 -m32   -DKBUILD_STR(s)=#s -DKBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)
 -DKBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain) -DDEBUG_HASH=57 -DDEBUG_HASH2=38
 -c -o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c
 cc1: warnings being treated as errors
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend':
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume':
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect
 make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1
 make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2

 Thanks,
 --
 Stephen Clark
 NetWolves
 Sr. Software Engineer III
 Phone: 813-579-3200
 Fax: 813-882-0209
 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
 http://www.netwolves.com



Have you checked on the Fedora forums, or mailing list?


-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

2011-04-07 Thread Markus Falb

On 7.4.2011 14:47, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:
 
 If anyone can suggest a simpler way of installing CentOS
 on a machine without a CD drive I should be interested to hear.


 I thought I did that a long time ago.  Put the small boot.img file that is
 in the /images on the CD or DVD isos on a USB drive (you can use a
 loopback mount to get it if you can't find a place to download it
 separately), boot from it, pick nfs as the install method, and point it to
 the directory containing the CD
 iso images that you have under an NFS export on another box.

...

 But when I said simple I really meant 
 following official methods and instructions given by Them, 
 the CentOS powers-that-be.
 
 I assume that the lack of a CD drive on the HP micro-server
 is a sign of things to come,
 so I would hope there would be an official method of installing CentOS
 on such a machine.
 

I think what Les suggested is one official supported method as outlined
in the Installation Guide. How official do you want it ?

I prefer PXE, but thats also not simple, and not possible in every
environment, colocations for instance.

-- 
Kind Regards, Markus Falb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

Timothy Murphy wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:

 If anyone can suggest a simpler way of installing CentOS
 on a machine without a CD drive I should be interested to hear.
snip
I know if you search this mailinglist's archives, you'll find my post from
last year; a quick google found it this way
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,80740

Don't forget to go back via linux rescue and take care of installing grub.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?


On 04/07/2011 09:13 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com  wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the
following problem. From what I read
-Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that
flag on in the following. Any ideas?

   gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d  -nostdinc
-isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude
-I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude
-I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__
-I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include
/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h
-fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding
-fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
-m32   -DKBUILD_STR(s)=#s -DKBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)
-DKBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain) -DDEBUG_HASH=57 -DDEBUG_HASH2=38
-c -o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend':
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume':
arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect
make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1
make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2

Have you checked on the Fedora forums, or mailing list?



I googled for it. I thought that since RHEL-6 is going to soon be Centos 6 that 
someone on this list might know the answer. I am
only using RHEL-6 til Centos 6 is released and will have to recompile the srpm 
for the kernel then so I thought I would get a head
start.

--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
 
 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you
 post to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP
 and go away and use something else. I guess that's far more
 professional than others trying to open up communications between a
 projects members and the developers. 
 
 Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop
 CentOS in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in
 the right direction.
 I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm
 looking for alternatives.

+1


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Mirrors

2011-04-07 Thread Kai Schaetzl

I noticed that I didn't get any of the 5.6 updates rsynced yet, so I 
checked my mirror and then the mirrors list. This mirror is indeed not on 
the list anymore and also not on the status page. However, I see other 
mirrors still on the list that are lagging for days. And I see that this 
mirror has a full 5.6 directory (maybe not complete, though, but quite 
full). I don't see any removal announcement about it on centos-mirror 
either.
So, I'm wondering if this mirror is now a mirror or not or if it has just 
fallen off the list somehow?
Talking of: ftp://rsync.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/centos/

I also notice that /5 is a directory and not a symlink as 4 and 3 are. But 
this is the same on mirror.centos.org. Why isn't it a symlink?

Kai


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] ZFS @ centOS

2011-04-07 Thread Ross Walker

On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:19 PM, rai...@ultra-secure.de wrote:

 
 
 But ...
 I've been reading about some of the issues with ZFS performance and have
 discovered that it needs a *lot* of RAM to support decent caching ...
 the recommendation is for a GByte of RAM per TByte of storage just for
 the metadata, which can add up.  Maybe cache memory starvation is one
 reason why so many disappointing test results are showing up.
 
 Yes, it uses most of any available RAM as cache.
 Newer implementations can use SSDs as a kind of 2nd-level cache (L2-ARC).
 Also, certain on-disk logs can be written out to NVRAMs directly, speeding
 up things even more.
 Compared with Cache-RAM in RAID-Controllers, RAM for servers is dirt-cheap.
 
 The philosophy is: why put tiny, expensive amounts of RAM into the
 RAID-controller and have it try to make guesses on what should be cached
 and what not - if we can add RAM to the server directly at a fraction of
 the cost and let the OS handle _everything_ short of moving the disk-heads
 over the platters.

The problem is the volatility of system RAM.

Those very expensive RAID write-back caches are usually battery backed (if they 
aren't don't buy them). It's the battery and the technology to recover the 
write cache after failure that makes it so expensive.

Look at the cost of capacitor backed SSDs vs non-capacitor backed SSDs.

When I ran a ZFS NFS server I used a RAID controller with battery backed 
write-back cache and the ZIL spread across the pool. Even with each disk as 
RAID0 setup, it was able to perform just as well as a similar pool using a 
standard SAS controller and a good SSD drive but the SSD setup cost twice as 
much and unlike the SSD the NVRAM doesn't burnout or need trimming.

 IMO, it's a brilliant concept.
 
 Do you know if there is a lot of performance-penalty with KVM/VBox,
 compared to Solaris Zones?

Solaris zones is not hardware virtualization it is a container technology like 
'jail' or openvz but with resource management.

-Ross

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?

On 07/04/11 15:10, Steve Clark wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the
 following problem. From what I read
 -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that
 flag on in the following. Any ideas?

Most likely because it's considered risky to have warnings.  They might
hide potential issues if not being fixed.  And halting on warnings is a
nice way how to catch them among all the log data a kernel compile can produce.

However, this question probably belongs more to the Fedora Kernel mailing
list [1], as this is a Fedora issue not a CentOS issue.  You know, two
different distributions ;-)


kind regards,

David Sommerseth


[1] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list

   gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d  -nostdinc
 -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem
 /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude 
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
 include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include
 include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__
 -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot
 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include
 /home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h
 -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding
 -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
 -m32   -DKBUILD_STR(s)=#s -DKBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain) 
 -DKBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain) -DDEBUG_HASH=57
 -DDEBUG_HASH2=38 -c -o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c
 cc1: warnings being treated as errors
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend':
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume':
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect
 make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1
 make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2
 
 Thanks,



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?

2011-04-07 Thread Neil Viglieno

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:10 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into
 the following problem. From what I read
 -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see
 that flag on in the following. Any ideas?
 

Fedora 14 ships with gcc 4.5.1 and RHEL 6 is shipped with gcc 4.4.4

I would try compiling on either a Fedora 12 (gcc 4.4.4) or Fedora 13
(gcc 4.4.5) too see if you get the same issue.

Regards
Neil
 





___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and
 run into the following problem. From what I read
 -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I
 don't see that flag on in the following. Any ideas?

My guess: 
gcc4.4.4 had --disable-werror by default, so we must -werror explicitly
to get warning treated as errors; 
gcc4.5.1 does NOT have --disable-werror by default, so, 
unless you specify --disable-werror on the compile line, warnings are
treated like errors.

I don't have either compiler version here at work, so I can't verify.

ANYHOW, if your 4.5.1 build tree Makefile has CFLAGS with
--disable-werrors in it, does the problem go away?

Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

On 4/7/2011 8:14 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
I thought I did that a long time ago. Put the small boot.img file that is
in the /images on the CD or DVD isos on a USB drive (you can use a
loopback mount to get it if you can't find a place to download it
separately), boot from it, pick nfs as the install method, and point it to
the directory containing the CD
iso images that you have under an NFS export on another box.

...

But when I said simple I really meant
following official methods and instructions given by Them,
the CentOS powers-that-be.

I assume that the lack of a CD drive on the HP micro-server
is a sign of things to come,
so I would hope there would be an official method of installing CentOS
on such a machine.

I think what Les suggested is one official supported method as outlined
in the Installation Guide. How official do you want it ?

Here's the prompt you'll see and what it means:

http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#s1-begininstall-nfs-x86

I prefer PXE, but thats also not simple, and not possible in every
environment, colocations for instance.

There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install grub.
I do nfs installs all the time because it is quicker/easier than
swapping CDs in machines that don't have a DVD drive, but I normally
burn the first disk and use 'linux askmethod' at the boot prompt. But,
if grub isn't automatically installed right automatically, you can get
into a shell with ctl-alt-F-something (F2 or F4, I think) and fix it
before rebooting, or you should be able to boot even the boot.img into
rescue mode - you just have to point it at the media again.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

2011-04-07 Thread Tom Grace

On 07/04/11 15:40, Les Mikesell wrote:

 There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
 confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install grub.
The thing to watch for with this is Disk ordering in the grub setup 
(only in the graphical installer). Generally Anaconda remaps your 
devices so the USB stick becomes /dev/sda, then you get Grub installed 
on the stick.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Brian Mathis

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Sorin Srbu sorin.s...@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of David Sommerseth
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.

 [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:

 Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...
 --
 /Sorin

Yes, stating the obvious.  When there's nothing new the project should
be focusing on improving things to become stronger to withstand the
storm of the next release cycle.  It only becomes obvious that has not
been done at times like this when the storm has arrived.

// Brian Mathis
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

Tom Grace wrote:
 On 07/04/11 15:40, Les Mikesell wrote:

 There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
 confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install grub.
 The thing to watch for with this is Disk ordering in the grub setup
 (only in the graphical installer). Generally Anaconda remaps your
 devices so the USB stick becomes /dev/sda, then you get Grub installed
 on the stick.

I solved all of that last year, and the link I posted covered it all.

   mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 4/7/2011 8:47 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
 Of David Sommerseth
 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM
 To: centos@centos.org
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

 Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux.

 [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]:

 Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release...

They come up every time that the methodology and resources of the 
developers don't produce the results expected by the users.  The fact 
that this has historically only happened around release times is 
coincidental.  People are (correctly) fearful of putting blind faith in 
optimistic engineers who say everything will be fine without saying why 
they believe that or why they reject suggestions for changes that might 
be improvements.

While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, 
there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is 
the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, 
and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Eduardo Grosclaude

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 08:52, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Anton Parol anton.pa...@orcsoftware.com 
 wrote:
 Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
 Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like 
 that are NOT acceptable.
 I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

 CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork and 
 make your own efforts.

I am receiving more than that. In fact, I have received from the
CentOS project more than what I could have payed for. And I keep
getting even more through the mailing list, wiki, and forums. Every
single day. These people are priceless and don't deserve to be
submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.
I suggest we write up a blurb in the wiki or somewhere explaining the
full When it's ready case --in the point of view of those
responsible for the project, who's else?
And then, never, ever again, answer these questions with anything but
a link to that page.

-- 
Eduardo Grosclaude
Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Neuquen, Argentina
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Corey A Johnson

On 4/7/2011 11:00 AM, Eduardo Grosclaude wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 08:52, Rudi Ahlersr...@softdux.com  wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Anton Parolanton.pa...@orcsoftware.com  
 wrote:
 Racism in open source software. That's the first time I've seen that. 
 Regardless of your dislike for someone, even if legitimate, comments like 
 that are NOT acceptable.
 I suggest you make a swift and sincere apology.

 CentOS is free, and you get what you pay for. If you don't like it, fork 
 and make your own efforts.
 I am receiving more than that. In fact, I have received from the
 CentOS project more than what I could have payed for. And I keep
 getting even more through the mailing list, wiki, and forums. Every
 single day. These people are priceless and don't deserve to be
 submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.
 I suggest we write up a blurb in the wiki or somewhere explaining the
 full When it's ready case --in the point of view of those
 responsible for the project, who's else?
 And then, never, ever again, answer these questions with anything but
 a link to that page.

had to give this one a + (1 * (infinity))

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

On 4/7/2011 9:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
 Tom Grace wrote:
 On 07/04/11 15:40, Les Mikesell wrote:

 There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
 confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install grub.
 The thing to watch for with this is Disk ordering in the grub setup
 (only in the graphical installer). Generally Anaconda remaps your
 devices so the USB stick becomes /dev/sda, then you get Grub installed
 on the stick.

 I solved all of that last year, and the link I posted covered it all.

I gave up reading that when I saw stuff about converting an iso to a usb 
boot, none of which needs to be done for an nfs install using the 
boot.img which is already usable.  Do you have a link for the relevant part?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

Les Mikesell wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 9:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
 Tom Grace wrote:
 On 07/04/11 15:40, Les Mikesell wrote:

 There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
 confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install
 grub.
 The thing to watch for with this is Disk ordering in the grub setup
 (only in the graphical installer). Generally Anaconda remaps your
 devices so the USB stick becomes /dev/sda, then you get Grub installed
 on the stick.

 I solved all of that last year, and the link I posted covered it all.

 I gave up reading that when I saw stuff about converting an iso to a usb
 boot, none of which needs to be done for an nfs install using the
 boot.img which is already usable.  Do you have a link for the relevant
 part?

The OP, I *think*, was asking how to install without a DVD drive - it
wasn't clear to me what they needed, but since they talked about not
having a drive for optical media, I assumed they were looking for
alternatives besides network install.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Markus Falb

On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:

 While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, 
 there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is 
 the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, 
 and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away.

This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
What did I miss ?
What changes do you talking about ?

-- 
Kind Regards, Markus Falb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
 
 While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
 uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
 CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
 installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
 driving people away. 
 
 This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
 What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?

AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
nightmarish than before.

Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).

These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5.5 Live CD netinstall

On 4/7/2011 10:08 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

 There is one quirk about USB booting that I forgot: it is likely to
 confuse the installer's concept of disk names and where to install
 grub.
 The thing to watch for with this is Disk ordering in the grub setup
 (only in the graphical installer). Generally Anaconda remaps your
 devices so the USB stick becomes /dev/sda, then you get Grub installed
 on the stick.

 I solved all of that last year, and the link I posted covered it all.

 I gave up reading that when I saw stuff about converting an iso to a usb
 boot, none of which needs to be done for an nfs install using the
 boot.img which is already usable.  Do you have a link for the relevant
 part?

 The OP, I *think*, was asking how to install without a DVD drive - it
 wasn't clear to me what they needed, but since they talked about not
 having a drive for optical media, I assumed they were looking for
 alternatives besides network install.

No, he has another linux box and a network.  The only issue is booting 
into the installer without a CD/DVD drive.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread MJang

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
  On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
  
  While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
  uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
  CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
  installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
  driving people away. 
  
  This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
  What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
 
 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
 nightmarish than before.
 
 Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
 significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
 CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
 reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
 
 These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.

I would appreciate an answer to one related question.

Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?

I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.

Thanks,
Mike

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Scott Silva

on 4/6/2011 2:59 PM Hendrik spake the following:
 2011/4/6 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org:
 On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
 That's not hard to do - stop reading them then.

 And once again we are avoiding a proper solution.


 No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the
 efforts going into the solution.

 Really, try stopping reading for a few weeks. You might surprise yourself.
 
 Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality?
 
 --
 Hendrik
I would say that if the moderators don't ban this person, they are WAY more
forgiving than I would be. Maybe you could have called him a jerk, an ass,
even butthead... But racial slurs just make you look childish...

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:

 This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
 What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
 
 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. 
 Starting 
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far
 more nightmarish than before. 
 
 Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
 significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
 CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
 reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
 
 These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than
 before. 
 
 I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
 
 Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
 
 I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.

Answer 4: 
This is not just an answer of 
yes it's a production release 
it's 
production releases are all that CentOS ever does.


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Brian Mathis

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brunner, Brian T.
bbrun...@gai-tronics.com wrote:
 centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
 On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:

 While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
 uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
 CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
 installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
 driving people away.

 This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
 What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?

 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
 nightmarish than before.

 Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
 significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
 CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
 reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).

 These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before.


 Insert spiffy .sig here:
 Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

 //me


It's already been said dozens of times by the developers that this
change does not impact projects like CentOS that just repackage the
Redhat source.  It only affects companies who try to provide
commercial support and need to know exactly what each kernel patch
does separately.


// Brian Mathis
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?


On 04/07/2011 10:01 AM, Neil Viglieno wrote:

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 09:10 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into
the following problem. From what I read
-Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see
that flag on in the following. Any ideas?


Fedora 14 ships with gcc 4.5.1 and RHEL 6 is shipped with gcc 4.4.4

I would try compiling on either a Fedora 12 (gcc 4.4.4) or Fedora 13
(gcc 4.4.5) too see if you get the same issue.



Builds OK on Centos 5.5 and F12.

--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Markus Falb

On 7.4.2011 17:23, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:

While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
driving people away.

This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?

AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting
6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or
backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
nightmarish than before.

I dont buy this argument.

CentOS is _rebuilding_ . Does not matter how the source is represented
in my understanding.

Anyway, I found an article where Russ Herold is quoted about the matter

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/

May I quote:

We haven't at all restricted CentOS's ability to grab source code and
recompile it and clean-out trademarks and package it. It's just some of
the knowledge of the insides that we're hiding, he explains. One
longtime CentOS developer agrees.

I'll not lose sleep on the matter, CentOS co-founder Russ Herold tells
The Reg.

--
Kind Regards, Markus Falb

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?


On 04/07/2011 10:25 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and
run into the following problem. From what I read
-Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I
don't see that flag on in the following. Any ideas?

My guess:
gcc4.4.4 had --disable-werror by default, so we must -werror explicitly
to get warning treated as errors;
gcc4.5.1 does NOT have --disable-werror by default, so,
unless you specify --disable-werror on the compile line, warnings are
treated like errors.

I don't have either compiler version here at work, so I can't verify.

ANYHOW, if your 4.5.1 build tree Makefile has CFLAGS with
--disable-werrors in it, does the problem go away?



Hmm... If I understand you, then I need to rebuild gcc with this config option? 
- I am using the gcc that came with f14 - Is there a switch to gcc to disable 
this 'feature' when I am trying to build a kernel - like 
-fdont-treat-warnings-as-errors ;-)


--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread MJang

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:36 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
  On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
  centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
  On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
 
  This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
  What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
  
  AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. 
  Starting 
  6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
  backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far
  more nightmarish than before. 
  
  Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
  significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
  CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
  reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
  
  These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than
  before. 
  
  I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
  
  Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
  
  I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
 
 Answer 4: 
 This is not just an answer of 
 yes it's a production release 
 it's 
 production releases are all that CentOS ever does.

Appreciate the clarification. I had thought that like SL, there would
have been a CentOS 6 beta. From my searches, it appears that I was
mistaken, there is no --public-- (or private?) CentOS 6 beta.

Thanks,
Mike

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Ian Murray



  These people are priceless and don't deserve to  be
  submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.


And everyone else is worthless and deserve the rudeness handed out by the devs? 
Why don't you make comment on that or is that perfectly acceptable because of 
who they are?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 4/7/2011 10:23 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:

 While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
 uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
 CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
 installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
 driving people away.

 This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
 What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?

 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
 nightmarish than before.

This one shouldn't affect the stock CentOS kernel and the 6.x release 
shouldn't have to wait for the centosplus version.

 Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
 significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
 CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
 reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).

Yes, if you can't build from the source and libs shipped, it is a 
problem... And from the meager info disclosed by the CentOS devs so far 
there's not much reason to be optimistic about how long it will take 
them to be able to reproduce the missing build environment tools/libs or 
if that will ever be possible.  And there's no particular reason to 
expect this to get better going forward with security-related updates 
since RH apparently wants to put the alternatives at a disadvantage.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Radu Gheorghiu

On 04/07/2011 06:49 PM, Ian Murray wrote:

 These people are priceless and don't deserve to  be
 submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.

 And everyone else is worthless and deserve the rudeness handed out by the 
 devs?
 Why don't you make comment on that or is that perfectly acceptable because of
 who they are?
Yes. And we should use another distro, and change our mail clients, ...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Lamar Owen

On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
 nightmarish than before.

This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild.  It would/could impact 
CentOSPlus.  See Johnny's March 8, 2011, post on planet.centos.org

 Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
 significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
 CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
 reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).

This is the, IMO, primary reason things have been slower this time around.

A close secondary is the subsequent 4.9 and 5.6 upstream releases.  Those were 
assigned a higher priority, and those are done.  4.9 is out and has been for a 
while, and 5.6 is syncing now.  5.6 had its share of build env/repo/root 
'things' apparently as well.

So 6.0 will be out when it's ready, and that's just the way it is.  I'd rather 
have 4.9 and 5.6 out first, and I fully support the developers' decision to do 
it that way, since I do have C4 and C5 servers out there, but I don't yet have 
a C6 server running.  And if you want to be a really early adopter, SL 
picked the other route, and so there is an EL6 rebuild out there to work with.  
That's one good thing about having the two projects separate, at least in this 
instance.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Feeding CentOS build results to twitter

2011-04-07 Thread Scott Silva

on 4/5/2011 11:46 PM John R Pierce spake the following:
 On 04/05/11 11:32 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
 A lot of the anxiety seems to be about the silence about any kind of
 progress.
 
 there's a fair amount of traffic on centos-devel
 
 archives here,
 http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-April/thread.html
Most of the traffic lately is the same is it done yet stuff on here. The
rest is developer and distro bashing/defending.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Johnny Hughes

On 04/07/2011 08:11 AM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go
 away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than
 others trying to open up communications between a projects members and
 the developers.

 Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS 
 in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right 
 direction.
 I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm 
 looking for alternatives.

Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.

For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.

What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service
Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.

If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in my
dealings with you in that case too.

When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to
treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to
you, guess what ...

You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or
Novell.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Ian Murray

- Original Message 
 From: Radu Gheorghiu r...@pengooin.net
 To: centos@centos.org
 Sent: Thu, 7 April, 2011 16:55:49
 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

 On 04/07/2011 06:49 PM, Ian Murray wrote:

  These people  are priceless and don't deserve to  be
  submitted to the  harshness we have been witnessing lately.

  And everyone else is  worthless and deserve the rudeness handed out by the 
devs?
  Why don't you  make comment on that or is that perfectly acceptable because 
of
  who  they are?
 Yes. And we should use another distro, and change our mail clients,  ...

I daren't use the forum in case I am using the wrong browser!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Radu Gheorghiu

On 04/07/2011 07:02 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:11 AM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 03:58 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 08:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 Please try to maintain some semblance of professionalism when you post
 to this list.
 This coming from someone who frequently tells people to SHUT UP and go
 away and use something else. I guess that's far more professional than
 others trying to open up communications between a projects members and
 the developers.

 Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop CentOS
 in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the right
 direction.
 I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, I'm
 looking for alternatives.
 Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.
Good.
 For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.

 What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service
 Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.
I don't think anybody wants a SLA from CentOS.
 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.
It's all about the money is it?

Johnny, why do you always reply with don't use it ? Or now i see give 
me money and i'll do it ?

Instead I would reply with a link to here's how we do the rebuild now, 
here's the tools we use, and here's where we are at, help us out! .

Instead of telling users to leave CentOS, ask for their help. Why not do 
that? I'm not sure, maybe all these resources are already online and I 
am not aware of them. That might very well be the case. However I am 
certain that if you would reply with an URL which states where the 
project is at, everybody would be happy, and you won't be seeing any 
when is this ready? questions.

If CentOS project is not so closed as it seems to be, please enlighten me.
 When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to
 treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to
 you, guess what ...

 You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or
 Novell.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Ian Murray



 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may  contract for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on  what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very  professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.
 
 When you want  something that is provided for free, and when you want to
 treat me like you  are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to
 you, guess what  ...
 
 You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle  or
 Novell.
 


Politeness costs nothing, though, doesn't it?

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)

2011-04-07 Thread Akemi Yagi

Changing the subject line for good ...

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
 On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
 nightmarish than before.

 This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild.  It would/could impact 
 CentOSPlus.

Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed
early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
(note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)

So far, luckily centosplus kernels are ahead of the distro kernel
in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note
12502).

Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Eduardo Grosclaude

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:49, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


  These people are priceless and don't deserve to  be
  submitted to the harshness we have been witnessing lately.


 And everyone else is worthless and deserve the rudeness handed out by the 
 devs?
 Why don't you make comment on that or is that perfectly acceptable because of
 who they are?

A good point. Nobody deserves rudeness. Nobody should push other
people to show it. That's just what I am asking for.


-- 
Eduardo Grosclaude
Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Neuquen, Argentina
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread MJang

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:48 -0700, MJang wrote:
 On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:36 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
  centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
   On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
   centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
   On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
  
   This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
   What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
   
   AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. 
   Starting 
   6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
   backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far
   more nightmarish than before. 
   
   Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
   significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
   CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
   reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
   
   These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than
   before. 
   
   I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
   
   Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
   
   I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
  
  Answer 4: 
  This is not just an answer of 
  yes it's a production release 
  it's 
  production releases are all that CentOS ever does.
 
 Appreciate the clarification. I had thought that like SL, there would
 have been a CentOS 6 beta. From my searches, it appears that I was
 mistaken, there is no --public-- (or private?) CentOS 6 beta.

If I'm reading
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=25878forum=53 
correctly, there will be a CentOS 6 beta first, 

though http://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/6/AuditStatus suggests about 50
packages still at issue in the audit process.

So those audited packages must be cleared first before a CentOS 6 beta
is released?

Thanks,
Mike

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)

2011-04-07 Thread Tom Bishop

This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig
in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn
more...Thanks! :)

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote:

 Changing the subject line for good ...

 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
  On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
  AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
  6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
  backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
  nightmarish than before.
 
  This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild.  It would/could impact
 CentOSPlus.

 Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed
 early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:

 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
 feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
 While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)

 So far, luckily centosplus kernels are ahead of the distro kernel
 in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note
 12502).

 Akemi
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)


On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

Changing the subject line for good ...

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owenlo...@pari.edu  wrote:

On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:

AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.  Starting
6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more
nightmarish than before.

This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild.  It would/could impact 
CentOSPlus.

Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed
early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
(note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)

So far, luckily centosplus kernels are ahead of the distro kernel
in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note
12502).


Hi Akemi,

Two questions:
1) Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus kernels 
that includes what the environment should be.

2) Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or must 
on do it themselves.

I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux behave 
according to
Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09

The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which 
prevents using it as
a customer edge router for ipv6.

From: Thomas Graf
Subject: [PATCH] ipv6: add special mode accept_ra=2 to accept RA while 
configured as router
Date: Friday, September 3, 2010 - 5:59 am

The current IPv6 behavior is to not accept router advertisements while
forwarding, i.e. configured as router.

This does make sense, a router is typically not supposed to be auto
configured. However there are exceptions and we should allow the
current behavior to be overwritten.

Therefore this patch enables the user to overrule the if forwarding
enabled then don't listen to RAs rule by setting accept_ra to the
special value of 2.

An alternative would be to ignore the forwarding switch alltogether
and solely accept RAs based on the value of accept_ra. However, I
found that if not intended, accepting RAs as a router can lead to
strange unwanted behavior therefore we it seems wise to only do so
if the user explicitely asks for this behavior.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf tg...@infradead.org

Index: net-2.6/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
===
--- net-2.6.orig/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
+++ net-2.6/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
@@ -1105,6 +1105,18 @@ errout:
 rtnl_set_sk_err(net, RTNLGRP_ND_USEROPT, err);
 }

+static inline int accept_ra(struct inet6_dev *in6_dev)
+{
+/*
+ * If forwarding is enabled, RA are not accepted unless the special
+ * hybrid mode (accept_ra=2) is enabled.
+ */
+if (in6_dev-cnf.forwarding  in6_dev-cnf.accept_ra  2)
+return 0;
+
+return in6_dev-cnf.accept_ra;
+}
+
 static void ndisc_router_discovery(struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
 struct ra_msg *ra_msg = (struct ra_msg *)skb_transport_header(skb);
@@ -1158,8 +1170,7 @@ static void ndisc_router_discovery(struc
 return;
 }

-/* skip route and link configuration on routers */
-if (in6_dev-cnf.forwarding || !in6_dev-cnf.accept_ra)
+if (!accept_ra(in6_dev))
 goto skip_linkparms;

 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_NDISC_NODETYPE
@@ -1309,8 +1320,7 @@ skip_linkparms:
  NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ISROUTER);
 }

-/* skip route and link configuration on routers */
-if (in6_dev-cnf.forwarding || !in6_dev-cnf.accept_ra)
+if (!accept_ra(in6_dev))
 goto out;

 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTE_INFO

Similar to accepting router advertisement, the IPv6 stack does not send router
solicitations if forwarding is enabled.

This patch enables this behavior to be overruled by setting forwarding to the
special value 2.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf tgraf@x

Index: net-2.6/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
===
--- net-2.6.orig/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
+++ net-2.6/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
@@ -2964,7 +2964,8 @@ static void addrconf_dad_completed(struc
start sending router solicitations.
  */

-if (ifp-idev-cnf.forwarding == 0 
+if ((ifp-idev-cnf.forwarding == 0 ||
+ ifp-idev-cnf.forwarding == 2) 
 ifp-idev-cnf.rtr_solicits  0 
 (dev-flagsIFF_LOOPBACK) == 0 
 (ipv6_addr_type(ifp-addr)  IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)) {



--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 4/7/2011 11:02 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.

That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it 
comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better 
with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those 
resources is if you are paid personally.  But maybe I'm reading too much 
into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to 
share the build environment.

 When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to
 treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to
 you, guess what ...

Would all the contributors of mirror infrastructure, etc., be OK with 
the project becoming a personal profit center for you?  If you weren't 
serious about demanding money for performance, why bring it up?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread James N. Smith


http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war

The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

Les Mikesell wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 11:02 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.

 That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it
 comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better
 with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those
 resources is if you are paid personally.  But maybe I'm reading too much
 into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to
 share the build environment.
snip
I think you're reading his reply the wrong way, Les. I see it as this is
a volunteer project, and I'm doing the best I can. You want guarantees,
then you can buy RHEL, or you can pay me for support, and then I'll have
the time to do that, and not have to worry about how to pay my bills if
I'm not at my day job.

   mark, waiting to find out if the Republicans shut down the gov't,
 and his paycheck

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?


mark, waiting to find out if the Republicans shut down the
  gov't, and his paycheck

There are as many Democrats as Republicans preventing success.

Brian, who doesn't consider yet another bloating of the budget
deficit to be a success.


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread compdoc

 http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war

The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)


Great song. At least all messages titled Centos 6 Update? Are easy to spot
and delete. :)


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)

2011-04-07 Thread Akemi Yagi

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
 On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

 http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
 feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
 While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)

 Hi Akemi,

 Two questions:
 1) Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus
 kernels that includes what the environment should be.

I built all the binaries on RHEL6beta2refresh. Other than that, I hope
that the info on how to build cplus 6 kernel is in that bug tracker
entry.

 2) Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or
 must on do it themselves.

 I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux
 behave according to
 Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09

 The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which
 prevents using it as
 a customer edge router for ipv6.

I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be
applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an
adjustment.

Could you file a request at bugs.centos.org ? I can try and build a
test cplus kernel with those patches applied. Are you then able to
test it to see if the patched version works as expected?

Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Kevin Thorpe

The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).

It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.

thanks
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Tom H

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:

 Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.

 For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.

 What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service
 Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.

 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
 one. If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for. I will be very professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.

 When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want to
 treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it to
 you, guess what ...

 You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle or
 Novell.

This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow
(KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it
makes the developers look like rank amateurs.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)

2011-04-07 Thread Rob Kampen


Tom Bishop wrote:
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks 
to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to 
learn more...Thanks! :)


On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com 
mailto:amy...@gmail.com wrote:


Changing the subject line for good ...

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu
mailto:lo...@pari.edu wrote:
 On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
 AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.
 Starting
 6.0 RH releases patched source.  This makes backing out a patch, or
 backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.)
far more
 nightmarish than before.

 This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild.  It would/could
impact CentOSPlus.

Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed
early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
(note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)

So far, luckily centosplus kernels are ahead of the distro kernel
in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note
12502).

This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build 
process and makes me offer the following comment:-/


PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of 
information about the status of the various build processes and even how 
to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure 
once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here 
- if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem 
encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - 
then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.


Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting 
digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the 
folk that do the work - go have a look.


It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon 
having all one's ducks in a row and one minor version change in a 
dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with 
the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new 
meaning to the word iterative.


My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work 
right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do 
this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list.
Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum 
but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that 
appreciates all that you do.


I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use 
- I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied 
with the quality of the product.
There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the 
CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are 
alternatives - they do cost money.
Pay your money and make your choice - no money...accept what is 
CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very 
informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and 
positive manner.

Thanks for reading.



Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org mailto:CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
  
attachment: rkampen.vcf___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread James N. Smith

Very true.  Maybe it's time to go load some custom rules into MailScanner :)

-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of compdoc
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 1:18 PM
To: 'CentOS mailing list'
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

 http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3980096/we-didnt-start-the-flame-war

The theme song of flame wars everywhere :)


Great song. At least all messages titled Centos 6 Update? Are easy to spot
and delete. :)


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Александр Кириллов

 Fully agree. This attitude has lead many companies I know to drop 
 CentOS
 in favour of other distros. This project is sure not going in the 
 right
 direction.
 I know, I'm going to be told to use something else, I know I know, 
 I'm
 looking for alternatives.

 Good ... if you don't like CentOS, then we do not want you to use it.

 For people who do like it, we do want you to use it.

 What we do not want is for people to think that they have a Service
 Level Agreement with CentOS to produce updates on their schedule.

 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract 
 for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in 
 my
 dealings with you in that case too.

 When you want something that is provided for free, and when you want 
 to
 treat me like you are paying me a million dollars a year to give it 
 to
 you, guess what ...

 You can also get service level agreements from Red Hat or from Oracle 
 or
 Novell.

 If this is all about money and what isn't, why don't you try and start 
 accepting cash donations
 to the project which have been disabled for a couple of years now? Some 
 extra income
 for the devs with no strings attached. You may even set financing 
 targets the way
 wikipedia does it. What's wrong with that?

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOSPlus kernel (Was: Centos 6 Update?)


On 04/07/2011 01:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com  wrote:

On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586

Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any
feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there.
While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3
(note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
Hi Akemi,

Two questions:
1) Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus
kernels that includes what the environment should be.

I built all the binaries on RHEL6beta2refresh. Other than that, I hope
that the info on how to build cplus 6 kernel is in that bug tracker
entry.


2) Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or
must on do it themselves.

I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux
behave according to
Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09

The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which
prevents using it as
a customer edge router for ipv6.

I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be
applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an
adjustment.

Could you file a request at bugs.centos.org ? I can try and build a
test cplus kernel with those patches applied. Are you then able to
test it to see if the patched version works as expected?

Akemi


I just finished building a kernel based on kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.src.rpm. I 
hand applied the patches. Like you said
one applied clean the other applied with a fuzz offset of -36 (IIRC). I am 
installing now to test.

My rebuild was simply cp the /boot/config-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.i686 to 
.config;make oldconfig;make rpm

That is why I was asking about the proper way.

I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.



--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves*
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

On 04/07/11 10:23 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
 The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
 the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).

 It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.

parallel scsi is becoming somewhat archaic, and probably getting harder 
to find, but I've always liked the LSI Logic scsi cards.

for PCI-X, that would be a LSI-U320, and for PCI-E X4, a LSU20320IE  
(both those have internal and external and external connectors on the 
same U320 SCSI channel)


a few more choices here, 
http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/scsi_hbas/index.html
(some have dual channels, others have different connectors)


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Michel van Deventer

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:45 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 04/07/11 10:23 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
  The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
  the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).
 
  It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.
 
 parallel scsi is becoming somewhat archaic, and probably getting harder 
 to find, but I've always liked the LSI Logic scsi cards.
 
 for PCI-X, that would be a LSI-U320, and for PCI-E X4, a LSU20320IE  
 (both those have internal and external and external connectors on the 
 same U320 SCSI channel)
 
 
 a few more choices here, 
 http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/scsi_hbas/index.html
 (some have dual channels, others have different connectors)
What about a PERC4 from Dell (LSI Megaraid , PCI-X). You should be able
to find them for a reasonable price on Ebay (70 euro). I used to have a
few lying around ;)

Regards,

Michel



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Lamar Owen

On Thursday, April 07, 2011 01:23:45 PM Kevin Thorpe wrote:
 The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
 the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).

Dell typically shipped Adaptec cards; I seem to remember 39160's being shipped 
in some 1850's I have.  That would be more than enough performance for what you 
want, and they aren't expensive on eBay.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Kevin Thorpe

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:45 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
 On 04/07/11 10:23 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
 The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
 the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).

 It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.

 parallel scsi is becoming somewhat archaic, and probably getting harder
 to find, but I've always liked the LSI Logic scsi cards.

 for PCI-X, that would be a LSI-U320, and for PCI-E X4, a LSU20320IE
 (both those have internal and external and external connectors on the
 same U320 SCSI channel)

Thanks. I'd seen the supported hardware list but I already know the Vortex
works just fine under linux and has for ages. Shame the Dell doesn't boot
with it in.

As for the archaic bit this is a brand new LTO 3 drive so it's not something
from a rummage sale. I'd have had a SATA one if it was available.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Kevin Thorpe

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Michel van Deventer
mic...@van.deventer.cx wrote:
 On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:45 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 04/07/11 10:23 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
  The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
  the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).
 
  It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.

 parallel scsi is becoming somewhat archaic, and probably getting harder
 to find, but I've always liked the LSI Logic scsi cards.

 for PCI-X, that would be a LSI-U320, and for PCI-E X4, a LSU20320IE
 (both those have internal and external and external connectors on the
 same U320 SCSI channel)


 a few more choices here,
 http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/scsi_hbas/index.html
 (some have dual channels, others have different connectors)
 What about a PERC4 from Dell (LSI Megaraid , PCI-X). You should be able
 to find them for a reasonable price on Ebay (70 euro). I used to have a
 few lying around ;)

It already has a PERC6 (I think) but that's fully occupied with the
RAID. Am I asking for
trouble having both installed?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Michel van Deventer

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:55 +0100, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Michel van Deventer
 mic...@van.deventer.cx wrote:
  On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 10:45 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
  On 04/07/11 10:23 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
   The only PCI-X card I have is an old ICP Vortex RAID controller and
   the Dell hangs with that installed (BIOS is disabled).
  
   It's only for a tape drive so performance isn't really an issue.
 
  parallel scsi is becoming somewhat archaic, and probably getting harder
  to find, but I've always liked the LSI Logic scsi cards.
 
  for PCI-X, that would be a LSI-U320, and for PCI-E X4, a LSU20320IE
  (both those have internal and external and external connectors on the
  same U320 SCSI channel)
 
 
  a few more choices here,
  http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/scsi_hbas/index.html
  (some have dual channels, others have different connectors)
  What about a PERC4 from Dell (LSI Megaraid , PCI-X). You should be able
  to find them for a reasonable price on Ebay (70 euro). I used to have a
  few lying around ;)
 
 It already has a PERC6 (I think) but that's fully occupied with the
 RAID. Am I asking for
 trouble having both installed?
No that should not be a problem. The PERC4 is fully supported under
Centos btw ;)

 Regards,

 Michel

p.s. I have a PERC4 available if you nee one, please contact me offlist,
we can work something out.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread R P Herrold

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:

 This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project 
 shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is 
 another example) because it makes the developers look like 
 rank amateurs.

It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not 
do.  Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and 
mock from the sidelines

Johnny has told people how to rebuild; I have told people how 
to do so; and KB has done so.  Over and over and over again. 
Ditto how to participate.  'Spoonfeeding answers' has been 
demonstrated to be a no-win proposition for this project -- it 
killed the value of the main IRC channel in short order when 
that 'nicer' approach was adopted. Check the wiki for further 
thoughts on the topic.  The tome of this list has driven 
several CentOS team members away from participating here 
regularly

As to kernel (and other package) build issues on a CentOS 6, I 
am sure I've mentioned here it is just not an issue ... 
continuing a 'centosplus' patched kernel 'just like before' 
may be trickier, but I am sure if enough folks are interested 
in scratching that itch, it will be solved

The Anaconda changes are nastier, as anaconda has grown wayyy 
too ornate, and an installer is a pretty necessary part of a 
distribution.  Chopping out parts comes to mind


http://www.mikelockett.com/stories.php?action=viewid=12

The QA folks get (and seemingly enjoyed during the 5.6 
stabilization) indigestion from some early batches of the 
bread, and work to help the project release only 'production 
ready' bread

Was the little red hen wrong to eat first?

The pig, the dog and the cat were lucky that digital goods are 
infinitely identically replicable, and that the hen had a 
mirror network that Ralph and Tru take the lead in maintaining

The CentOS hens have grown a hard set of feathers, as a 
result


In drafting this, I considered also building analogies on:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html

and one on this quote from a well-known morality play although 
it is harder to construct in a 'friendly' fashion:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain
myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket
of the very freedom that I provide and then questions
the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said thank you and went
on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon
and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what
you think you're entitled to!

But then, friendly trolls are an oxymoron, right?  ;)

-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] centos 5.6 live cd - not installable to hard drive?

2011-04-07 Thread Johan Scheepers

Good day,

Downloaded centos 5.6 live cd from...

http://mirror.nexcess.net/CentOS/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso

it is dated 06-04-2011.

No option to install on hard disk.

Have I missed it somehow?

Please some advice.

Maybe the address if an installable cd iso please.
Thanks
Johan
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] centos 5.6 live cd - not installable to hard drive?

2011-04-07 Thread Nicolas Ross

 Downloaded centos 5.6 live cd from...

 http://mirror.nexcess.net/CentOS/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso

 it is dated 06-04-2011.

 No option to install on hard disk.

 Have I missed it somehow?

 Please some advice.

 Maybe the address if an installable cd iso please.

Just go to the same place, and download the DVD torrent and get it via 
bittorrent or download the 8 cd images.

Be advised, centos 5.6 isn't officially out, the said DVD image just change 
a few hours ago.

Regards, 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 4/7/2011 1:05 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

 Johnny has told people how to rebuild; I have told people how
 to do so; and KB has done so.  Over and over and over again.

Nobody wants to make the same builds that will fail QA over and over 
again.  Where have you shared the information that would enable work 
that does not repeat known mistakes?  Or where the problem is in the 
contents of the unspecified build environment, which of the likely 
suspects have been tried, and where to find other possibilities?

 Was the little red hen wrong to eat first?

Didn't she offer to share access to the garden/tools/kitchen?  Not quite 
the same here.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

On 4/7/2011 12:05 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

 If you WANT a service level agreement with me, then you may contract for
 one.  If you pay me enough, I will guarantee you updates on what ever
 schedule you are willing to pay for.  I will be very professional in my
 dealings with you in that case too.

 That's sort of disturbing... Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it
 comes across to me as implying that the CentOS project could do better
 with more resources and the only way you'll allow it to have those
 resources is if you are paid personally.  But maybe I'm reading too much
 into the rejections of offers to help with builds and the refusals to
 share the build environment.
 snip
 I think you're reading his reply the wrong way, Les. I see it as this is
 a volunteer project, and I'm doing the best I can. You want guarantees,
 then you can buy RHEL, or you can pay me for support, and then I'll have
 the time to do that, and not have to worry about how to pay my bills if
 I'm not at my day job.

Probably - if he were serious about taking money I'd expect to see 
contracts on the web site, but there is still a disconnect between 
saying it could be done better given certain resources and refusing to 
let the project accept the offers of help it gets or distribute it's 
build environment.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

On 04/07/11 10:49 AM, Michel van Deventer wrote:
 What about a PERC4 from Dell (LSI Megaraid , PCI-X). You should be able
 to find them for a reasonable price on Ebay (70 euro). I used to have a
 few lying around ;)


raid controllers are problematic for tape devices.   many don't support 
plain passthrough SCSI


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

On 04/07/11 10:52 AM, Kevin Thorpe wrote:
 As for the archaic bit this is a brand new LTO 3 drive so it's not something
 from a rummage sale. I'd have had a SATA one if it was available.

newer LTO tapes are often SAS or FC, but yeah, SCSI is still on the menu 
for them.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Ljubomir Ljubojevic

I am fully aware of it. But upgrades to the kernel are not the same as 
newer kernel. And same kernel with upgrades means same core packages 
that block using newer apps.

Ljubomir

John Hodrien wrote:
 On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
 
 Just newer kernel and newer core packages that can drive newer
 applications. CentOS 5.5 kernel and core packages are 3-4 years old in
 the (Linux) world that dramatically changed since then.
 
 I wouldn't refer to the 5.5 kernel as 3-4 years old as there are significant
 backports to the EL5 kernel such that 5.5's kernel is measurably different to
 5.0, and even further away from 2.6.18.
 
 jh
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?

2011-04-07 Thread Michel van Deventer

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 12:17 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
 On 04/07/11 10:49 AM, Michel van Deventer wrote:
  What about a PERC4 from Dell (LSI Megaraid , PCI-X). You should be able
  to find them for a reasonable price on Ebay (70 euro). I used to have a
  few lying around ;)
 
 
 raid controllers are problematic for tape devices.   many don't support 
 plain passthrough SCSI
Well, I did use one of these controllers for a tape drive actually :)
  
Regards,

Michel


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

2011-04-07 Thread Tom H

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, R P Herrold herr...@centos.org wrote:
 On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote:

 This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project
 shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is
 another example) because it makes the developers look like
 rank amateurs.

 It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not
 do.  Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and
 mock from the sidelines

It's not a question of ease, it's a question of professionalism and
image. The IT manager of a company where I've installed some CentOS
boxes asked me about doing new installs and upgrades given that RHEL
6's out. I told him that CentOS 6 hadn't been published yet. He did
some googling, read some centos and centos-devel threads and emailed
me that the developers are f-ing jerks.

It's the second time that I point out that the CentOS communication
policy (if you there is one) is completely unprofessional. You can let
off steam by saying we're volunteers, so we can tell you to use
another distro if you're unhappy but you do yourselves more harm than
good.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Can anyone suggest a SCSI 3 card in either PCI-X or PCI-E x 4 for a Dell Poweredge 2900?