[CentOS-es] SALUDOS COMUNIDAD... TENGO UN PROBLEMA
Saludos comunidad, tengo un problema para autenticar un ldap+samba, cuando llego a este puento me sale.. durante todo el transcurso de la configuracion no tuve ningun error. He seguido el manual de la pagina de www.alcancelibre.org Que puedo hacer? smbldap-populate -a administrator Populating LDAP directory for domain DOMSMB (S-1-5-21-2252255531-4061614174-2474224977) (using builtin directory structure) erreur LDAP: Can't contact master ldap server for writing (IO::Socket::INET: Bad hostname 'redesidat.com') at /usr/sbin//smbldap_tools.pm line 322. ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
The repository to which I am referring is the liblouis repository on googlecode. I get a working copy, which has an autogen.sh file. I run this and then configure. Make gives the following errors ../libtool: line 826: X--tag=CC: command not found ../libtool: line 859: libtool: ignoring unknown tag : command not found ../libtool: line 826: X--mode=compile: command not found ../libtool: line 992: *** Warning: inferring the mode of operation is deprecated.: command not found ../libtool: line 993: *** Future versions of Libtool will require --mode=MODE be specified.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xgcc: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-DHAVE_CONFIG_H: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../../gnulib: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../liblouis: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-g: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-O2: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MT: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MD: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MP: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MF: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X.deps/progname.Tpo: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-c: command not found ../libtool: line 1188: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1193: libtool: compile: cannot determine name of library object from `': command not found make[3]: *** [progname.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 This library compiles on my home Linus machine, which runs Redhat Enterprise Linux. It also builds with no problems. Sorry for not being more specific in my first message. If you need more information I will try to provide it. Thanks, John On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:59:07AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:32:24PM -0500, John J. Boyer wrote: I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com If I checkout or pull something from a repository, it will contain an autogen.sh file Running this and then configure seems to work. However, when I run make I get a lot of error messages from libtool saying that such and such a command could not be found on some line or that there is a syntax error. This happens even with the latest updates. Several people have been unable to help. What is the problem, and what should I do about it? It would help to be more specific. If you are pulling something from a repository, do you mean that it's a CentOS program? When a command is not found, or a library is not found, one way to find it is with yum provides */command_name Can you give a specific example? -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Spike: A slayer with family and friends. That sure as hell wasn't in the brochure. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer Abilitiessoft, Inc. http://www.abilitiessoft.com Madison, Wisconsin USA Developing software for people with disabilities ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
I haven't had this many errors doing a make in a long, long, long, long time... maybe never. (I'm saying that I'm guessing here) It could be that you were in the wrong directory when you ran make or, more likely, you skipped a command (perhaps .configure) that should have been run before running make. Did a README file come with this tarball? If so, did you try looking through it for specific instructions? On 05/16/2011 02:43 AM John J. Boyer wrote: The repository to which I am referring is the liblouis repository on googlecode. I get a working copy, which has an autogen.sh file. I run this and then configure. Make gives the following errors ../libtool: line 826: X--tag=CC: command not found ../libtool: line 859: libtool: ignoring unknown tag : command not found ../libtool: line 826: X--mode=compile: command not found ../libtool: line 992: *** Warning: inferring the mode of operation is deprecated.: command not found ../libtool: line 993: *** Future versions of Libtool will require --mode=MODE be specified.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xgcc: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-DHAVE_CONFIG_H: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../../gnulib: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../liblouis: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-g: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-O2: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MT: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MD: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MP: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MF: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X.deps/progname.Tpo: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-c: command not found ../libtool: line 1188: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1193: libtool: compile: cannot determine name of library object from `': command not found make[3]: *** [progname.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 This library compiles on my home Linus machine, which runs Redhat Enterprise Linux. It also builds with no problems. Sorry for not being more specific in my first message. If you need more information I will try to provide it. Thanks, John On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:59:07AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:32:24PM -0500, John J. Boyer wrote: I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com If I checkout or pull something from a repository, it will contain an autogen.sh file Running this and then configure seems to work. However, when I run make I get a lot of error messages from libtool saying that such and such a command could not be found on some line or that there is a syntax error. This happens even with the latest updates. Several people have been unable to help. What is the problem, and what should I do about it? It would help to be more specific. If you are pulling something from a repository, do you mean that it's a CentOS program? When a command is not found, or a library is not found, one way to find it is with yum provides */command_name Can you give a specific example? -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Spike: A slayer with family and friends. That sure as hell wasn't in the brochure. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so I try to conserve it. --Mark Twain ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Past numbers debunks this myth: CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. While eg. CentOS 4.8 took 3 months CentOS 5.6 took 3 months See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Nokia Cellphone and VMWare
Hi, I've connected a Nokia 6310i Cellphone via the USB Port to an ESXi 4.1 Host and added it to a CentOS 5.6 64Bit server. The problem is, that I wont get an suitable tty device (/dev/ttyACM0) like I get when I use Debian.. here is the output of the log files: dmesg: usbcore: registered new driver rndis_host usbcore: registered new driver cdc_acm drivers/usb/class/cdc-acm.c: v0.25:USB Abstract Control Model driver for USB modems and ISDN adapters lsusb: Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0421:0359 Nokia Mobile Phones Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0e0f:0002 VMware, Inc. Virtual USB Hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID : Bus 001 Device 001: ID : I will need the phone to send SMS (Nagios). Can someone help me to get this thing running? Thx Robert___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Past numbers debunks this myth: CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. You left out and failed to respond to the following explanations. From Johnny Hughes earlier response: ~~ The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. The Original CentOS 3 release did not even have a ZERO release. We didn't finish it until 3.1 had been out for some time and we released 3.1 as our first release. That first release happened (for 3.1) on 3.19.2004: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2004-March/15.html The Red Hat 3.0 release happened on October 23, 2003. That is 5 months. The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many non released packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. ~~ Note, the reasons why 4.0 and 5.0 *could* be released more quickly: The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. And why 6.0 (like 3.0) is a different animal. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many non released packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. And also the fact that two point releases also came out in the same time frame: Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. Why do you snip the explanations and ignore the arguments contained in the text you snipped? Why no mention of the time it took to get 3.1 (not 3.0) out the door? Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] allowing users to write to a web content area
On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote: Hello, I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of them permission to write to a web area so they can place content visible to the web server. I've got two groups webdev1 and webdev2 which I want one to be able to write to site1 and the other to site2. I've got between 3 and 5 users in each group. I'd prefer not to mess with these users umask settings, but want the correct permissions and ownerships user:webdev1 or user:webdev2 where user is the username of the person who placed the file. Permissions I believe should be 664 so apache can read the files. I'm wondering if I need to look in to ACLS which I've not used or if there's another solution? Thanks. Dave. It seams obvious... add the apache user to both webdev1 and webdev2 groups and you are done... no need to change umasks and perms :) Marian 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] allowing users to write to a web content area
Marian Marinov wrote: On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote: Hello, I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of them permission to write to a web area so they can place content visible to the web server. I've got two groups webdev1 and webdev2 which I want one to be able to write to site1 and the other to site2. I've got between 3 and 5 users in each group. I'd prefer not to mess with these users umask settings, but want the correct permissions and ownerships user:webdev1 or user:webdev2 where user is the username of the person who placed the file. Permissions I believe should be 664 so apache can read the files. I'm wondering if I need to look in to ACLS which I've not used or if there's another solution? Thanks. Dave. It seams obvious... add the apache user to both webdev1 and webdev2 groups and you are done... no need to change umasks and perms :) This would give apache write access to the site contents, which is bad practice. It also won't solve the umask issue. Since the OP wants all members of webdev1 to have write access to site1, he needs the setgid bit active on site1/ . And he needs all files in site1/ to be 664 as he says. But with a umask 077 for all users, any new file created by a user will be 600. I don't know how to solve that cleanly at file creation (but I don't know ACLs). You could ask your users to try to remember to chmod any new files; and have a find command running in cron regularly to do the chmod when they forget. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 02:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Past numbers debunks this myth: CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. While eg. CentOS 4.8 took 3 months CentOS 5.6 took 3 months See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS Yes, and I told you why that is ... upstream had good beta/rc programs for those c4.0 and c5.0. The releases were built entirely on the beta's ... the build environment was good. For 3.0 and 6.0, we had to invent a new build system and had to host it on a different OS. They did not build it on the beta/rc. It will be released when it is released, if you don't like it then leave. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote: Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light? I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his very quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise a release that is 3 months or 6 months late (with no transparency to what is going on or how we could help). You've been doing it for months. It's getting quite old and tiresome. John -- I try to treat whoever I meet as an old friend. This gives me a genuine feeling of happiness. It is the practice of compassion. -- His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, from Compassion and the Individual pgppgdGIQ4pSl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] allowing users to write to a web content area
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: This would give apache write access to the site contents, which is bad practice. It also won't solve the umask issue. Since the OP wants all members of webdev1 to have write access to site1, he needs the setgid bit active on site1/ . And he needs all files in site1/ to be 664 as he says. But with a umask 077 for all users, any new file created by a user will be 600. I don't know how to solve that cleanly at file creation (but I don't know ACLs). You could ask your users to try to remember to chmod any new files; and have a find command running in cron regularly to do the chmod when they forget. ACLs sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. Default ACLs set on a directory apply to files/directories created within it, so there shouldn't be a file creation issue. A periodic scan from a cron find isn't a bad idea either, as it provides you a mechanism to reimpose correctness even if people do something wrong. I don't think you're likely to find that happens to much with ACLs and most people don't understand how to use them so won't change them ;) jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] allowing users to write to a web content area
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: Marian Marinov wrote: On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote: Hello, I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of them permission to write to a web area so they can place content visible to the web server. I've got two groups webdev1 and webdev2 which I want one to be able to write to site1 and the other to site2. I've got between 3 and 5 users in each group. I'd prefer not to mess with these users umask settings, but want the correct permissions and ownerships user:webdev1 or user:webdev2 where user is the username of the person who placed the file. Permissions I believe should be 664 so apache can read the files. I'm wondering if I need to look in to ACLS which I've not used or if there's another solution? Thanks. Dave. It seams obvious... add the apache user to both webdev1 and webdev2 groups and you are done... no need to change umasks and perms :) This would give apache write access to the site contents, which is bad practice. It also won't solve the umask issue. Since the OP wants all members of webdev1 to have write access to site1, he needs the setgid bit active on site1/ . And he needs all files in site1/ to be 664 as he says. But with a umask 077 for all users, any new file created by a user will be 600. I don't know how to solve that cleanly at file creation (but I don't know ACLs). You could ask your users to try to remember to chmod any new files; and have a find command running in cron regularly to do the chmod when they forget. There is an option to set on the directory so any new file when created will have umask of the group or directory owner (something like that). I am yet to test and use this but I found howto somewhere on the net. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 04:32 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Past numbers debunks this myth: CentOS 4.0 took 23 days CentOS 5.0 took 28 days CentOS 6.0 is not released after 6 months. Why do you snip the explanations and ignore the arguments contained in the text you snipped? Why no mention of the time it took to get 3.1 (not 3.0) out the door? CentOS 3.0 was not released because the project was still in its infancy (cAos project). I don't think it makes sense to even use it as a point of reference (unless maybe to argue for a direct CentOS 6.1 release). But that still makes Johnny's statement false by a large margin. The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. Also the whole explanation does not provide any reasoning why CentOS 5.6 took 3 months. The QA team is not allowed to speak up or provide feedback, or they could loose their 'privilege'. Sure CentOS 6.0 is a different beast, but CentOS 6.0 was delayed in favor of CentOS 5.6. So again, why would CentOS 6.1 be released quicker if CentOS 5.6 has a well-known process and non of the issues Johnny was pointing at ? This was mainly because we had to rewrite anaconda a bunch of times to get the ISOs to build. It was also because we kept finding issues in QA. (package A need to be rebuilt, which caused package B to be rebuilt). We added in QA at the request of the Community ... and it helps. It also makes it take longer to get a release out. That and, our developers do this in their spare time. Take a look at why samba says Samba4 is not out: = When will Samba 4.0.0 be released? When it's ready. It's very hard to say when that will be. It depends on a lot of things and people's spare time. = My question was very specific though. Your question is insulting and arrogant. If you want to use CentOS, then use it. If you don't then take your arrogant whining somewhere else. Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light? I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his very quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise a release that is 3 months or 6 months late (with no transparency to what is going on or how we could help). You can't help ... we tried to let you help. You don't want to help. You want to stir the pot. That you don't like the project is obvious. Go away. But if anything brought up wouldn't be ignored or obfuscated, CentOS communication would be a lot more honest, and threads would be a lot shorter. It's because the discussion is being side-tracked that they are becoming larger and the essence is being repeated. There was a recent thread on centos-devel which clearly demonstrated this. It took a long thread and real worls examples for the CentOS developers to finally acknowledge there was a problem, and acknowledge it could be fixed for CentOS 6. This thread could be 4 posts long if the response wouldn't be defensive by default. We want to produce a quality product. We have been doing so for 7 years. If it is not fast enough for you, then don't use it. (And just like this thread, I did not start it either and am hardly the largest contributor to the thread) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/15/2011 05:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: The process around building CentOS has traditionally been very secretive, which makes the name *Community* Enterprise OS seem very inapt. The community in CentOS that you write about was NEVER about building CentOS. We have never said that anyone but the project would build it. The community part is that we give it away for free and the community helps each other use it. That is what this list used to be for. Before it turned into an completely unusable pile of crap, where a few people whine the same incessant demands, as if they are paying for something. The community provided the QA team, they provide the answers to bugs.centos.org, they provide the technical answers here. That is what the community does, that is what their role in the process is. This is not new. The project releases the distributions in our spare time. They are something that usually costs lots of money, but you get them for free. Because you get them for free, you help the project by spending time answering e-mail on the lists or by looking at the bugs and answering questions there. Or by helping in the forums, etc. That is not what we are seeing here. What we are seeing here is a small group of people who think they are entitled to CentOS on their schedule and not on ours. Well, we make CentOS because we use it in production. If you can also use it in production, great. If you can't use it, that is also great. We are trying to provide more information on what is going on, but I would say that we already provide more information than any other distro out there. Certainly any enterprise distro out there. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
Hello John, On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 01:43 -0500, John J. Boyer wrote: ../libtool: line 1136: X-I.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../../gnulib: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../liblouis: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-g: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-O2: command not found Definitely an X issue ;) . See that X in every error? Seems like a bad substitution or something similar. Any idea where that X comes from? Did you accidently edit autogen.sh? Or perhaps your CentOS VM is an older version than your RHEL you use at home and the programme you are building needs more recent libtools? I reckon that onces you get rid of those X-es things should build fine. Regards, Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 1U firewall hardware
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Nataraj incoming-cen...@rjl.com wrote: On 05/15/2011 05:56 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/15/11 5:00 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote: http://routerboard.com/pricelist.php?showProduct=98 13 Gigabit ports note 10 of those ports are on ethernet switches, so the actual router probably only has 5 ethernet ports, 3 dedicated and 2 switch groups of 5 ports each. also note this doesn't run centos, it runs the vendors own proprietary RouterOS linux distribution. If your looking for a more enterprise solution that runs linux and is Red Hat certified, there's always the Dell R210 with configurations ranging from a Celeron (about $500 USD), Core I3, on up to a quad Xeon starting at $820 USD, 2 onboard broadcom gigE's and 1 X16 PCIexpress slot which could host a 4 port gigE card. It supports the Dell remote access controller. The only advantage I see to the Atom based system is they probably use a bit less power. Nataraj ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I have always liked the look of the 19 1u case from varia ( http://www.varia-store.com/) for firewalls, but you willl have an issue getting 5gb nics with one of these cases. When I needed something similar with four 4gb nics i used an ASUS Hummingbird board with a Travla C146 case. The board has two intel gb nics on the board, and one PCIe X1 slot. I used the PCIe slot to add two intel PCI cards to get x4 gb nics in total. I also have a PCIe x1 to PCIe x16 riser/adapter from linitx.com to allow the eventual installation of 4port gb intel card to give 6 gb nics in total. I don't know how quick or otherwise my 4gb nic setup is but i have not noticed any issues with it during the last 9 months or so. jk ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, John J. Boyer john.bo...@abilitiessoft.com wrote: I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com If I checkout or pull something from a repository, it will contain an autogen.sh file Running this and then configure seems to work. However, when I run make I get a lot of error messages from libtool saying that such and such a command could not be found on some line or that there is a syntax error. This happens even with the latest updates. Several people have been unable to help. What is the problem, and what should I do about it? I don't really see what this has to do with creating a tarball. Your question relates more to the building of the software binaries than the packaging. Generally what you're seeing is attributed to missing dependencies for the build process. For example, you may be missing several -devel packages required for the proper compilation of the software, or what's shipped in centos may simply not be new enough. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading non-CentOS stuff. Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic as anything else. Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obliged to find a new home. Ubuntu is one of the options. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. //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] bond empty after reboot
Hi all, I've setup a ethernet bond on my centos 5.6 server , when i do a reboot the bond does come up but cleared all the slaves and i've to manually re-add them with ifenslave. does anyone know a solution to this? am i missing something? offcourse i can add it to my rc.local but there must be a more elegant way. please see my configs below Thanks, Wessel ifcfg-bond0: DEVICE=bond0 IPADDR=xxx.xx.x.xx NETMASK=255.255.255.0 NETWORK=xxx.xx.x.xx BROADCAST=xxx.xx.x.xx GATEWAY= ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none USERCTL=no BONDING_MODULE_OPTS='mode=802.3ad miimon=80' TYPE=BOND ifcfg-eth0 (same for eth1,eth2 eth3): # Intel Corporation 82576 Gigabit Network Connection DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none USERCTL=no MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=YES TYPE=ethernet HWADDR=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx /etc/modprobe.conf: alias eth0 igb alias eth1 igb alias eth2 igb alias eth3 igb alias eth4 bnx2 alias eth5 bnx2 alias scsi_hostadapter mptbase alias scsi_hostadapter1 mptsas alias scsi_hostadapter2 ata_piix alias scsi_hostadapter3 usb-storage alias net-pf-10 off alias ipv6 off options ipv6 disable=1 alias bond0 bonding options bond0 miimon=80 mode=4 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:11 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading non-CentOS stuff. Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic as anything else. Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obliged to find a new home. Ubuntu is one of the options. So long as it is legitimate dev/whatever bashing. So, shall I start with the 'LTS' 'maintenance', or the launchpad bug devs and chums system, or the Ubuntu community and 'community' aka Developers or the lists/irc/forums? Ubuntu is however convenient as a desktop if you have Nvidia graphics but not everything on the desktop is going to be peachy. But for anything else...I dunno. I have this Ubuntu Hardy server but I sure don't like the fact that I have to program me own firewall rule scripts. And no, don't give me firestarter or ufw. If only I had a Centos disk when I had to build that server... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 1U firewall hardware
pci is a shared bus with a max of 2 gigabits. you'll see a gigabit but never see two or more. 32bits * 33MHz = 1,056,000,000 bps. PCI is an arbitrated bus with one talker at a time (half-duplex), so it's only capable of half the data rate of a 1Gbps (full duplex) network. In practice, I've yet to achieve more than ~ 400Mbps on a PCI based Gbit NIC, even PCI-X based Intel NICs often fall short (~600Mbps) despite the theoretical bandwidth of the bus. In my experience, PCI-e is the only bus fast enough on consumer PC hardware to sustain Gbit data rates. On paper, PCI-e 1x should support two 1 Gbit ports (four ports if using PCI-e v2.0). However, the multiport Gbit NIC manufactures all seem to have settled on PCI-e 4x, similar to how gfx card makers have settled on 16x whether or not the card can use or benefit from the additional bandwidth. --Blake ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: We have never said that anyone but the project would build it. But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact, I thought the project used to post goals for timeliness instead of just 'whenever'. The community part is that we give it away for free and the community helps each other use it. That is what this list used to be for. People know how to use 5.x by now. I suspect we'd all rather be talking about how to use new features. Before it turned into an completely unusable pile of crap, where a few people whine the same incessant demands, as if they are paying for something. You spoiled us with speed up until the 5.3 update. We thought it was something we could count on... Well, we make CentOS because we use it in production. And you don't have a use for 6.x? We are trying to provide more information on what is going on, but I would say that we already provide more information than any other distro out there. Certainly any enterprise distro out there. You mean things like: http://release.debian.org/ http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/operation https://buildd.debian.org/ (w/links to build logs) https://buildd.debian.org/stats/ Doesn't leave much to post mailing list questions regarding status even if their release schedule is whenever... I can sort-of see why commercial distros that want to hurt their competition would hide this kind of information, but what's the point for Centos? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On May 15, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as mentioned by one of the developers) that they had to start from scratch on 6.0 -- that they'll be set up for 6.1 when it comes out. You're also leaving out the fact that SL had to rebuild the same three releases -- and they're still working on the last of those -- so the amount of time it's taking CentOS developers squares with the amount of time required by the SL developers. but you're leaving out a very important distinction - SL released all the updates so the lack of a 5.6 release by SL is merely the installer disc's which is significant only to people who are looking to install SL on hardware that is newly supported by 5.6 and not 5.5. Their updated 5.6 packages (and the packages of primary concern are the security updates) have been available for some time - sooner than CentOS 5.6 packages. I think the time factor squaring is relevant only when you use the milestone targets. Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 11:11 AM, Craig White wrote: but you're leaving out a very important distinction - SL released all the updates so the lack of a 5.6 release by SL is merely the installer disc's which is significant only to people who are looking to install SL on hardware that is newly supported by 5.6 and not 5.5. Their updated 5.6 packages (and the packages of primary concern are the security updates) have been available for some time - sooner than CentOS 5.6 packages. I think the time factor squaring is relevant only when you use the milestone targets. To be fair, there is another distinction in that the SL updates were more of a rolling release that may not have been built in an environment that matched upstream as precisely as the Centos version. But since we don't know the details of that environment it is hard to know whether to expect any practical differences as a result. Without more to go on, my gut feeling is that I would have preferred security updates to not be delayed by problems building a new anaconda/installer - and that if yum can't deal with updating components in any order the distribution is inherently broken anyway. As it happens, I think I have the main internet-exposed servers updated and the exploit attempts I was seeing were aimed at something fixed in 5.4 anyway - but I was still worried about things I might not have seen... -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 10:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: We have never said that anyone but the project would build it. But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact, I thought the project used to post goals for timeliness instead of just 'whenever'. The community part is that we give it away for free and the community helps each other use it. That is what this list used to be for. People know how to use 5.x by now. I suspect we'd all rather be talking about how to use new features. Before it turned into an completely unusable pile of crap, where a few people whine the same incessant demands, as if they are paying for something. You spoiled us with speed up until the 5.3 update. We thought it was something we could count on... Well, we make CentOS because we use it in production. And you don't have a use for 6.x? We are trying to provide more information on what is going on, but I would say that we already provide more information than any other distro out there. Certainly any enterprise distro out there. You mean things like: http://release.debian.org/ http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/operation https://buildd.debian.org/ (w/links to build logs) https://buildd.debian.org/stats/ Doesn't leave much to post mailing list questions regarding status even if their release schedule is whenever... I can sort-of see why commercial distros that want to hurt their competition would hide this kind of information, but what's the point for Centos? The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track stuff. We are working on a new website design. We opened up a new QAWeb. We have an announce list. As far as build logs are concerned, they reside on the build server ... where we had people try to break into. That machine is now hidden and references to its name are also hidden. We can't have people pounding away against important servers ... there is no such thing as a completely secure setup. We therefore will not make our build machines open to the public. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com This may be a non-issue but have you tried compiling stuff before on this machine? Most of the VPS system's I've seen in operation have stripped out the build tools for performance security reasons. -- Drew Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. --Marie Curie This started out as a hobby and spun horribly out of control. -Unknown ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] issue with fail2ban letting IP's through
Hello, I'm using fail2ban to block bots in conjunction with existing iptables rules. Here's a few rules from my iptables configuration: # # Set up a temporary pass rule so we don't lock ourselves out when #doing remote ssh iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT # # flush the current rules iptables -F # # Allow SSH connections on tcp port 22 iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # # Set default policies for INPUT, FORWARD and OUTPUT chains iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 202.0.0.0/8 -j DROP This morning the ssh fail2ban jail blocked this: 202.205.176.125 and the email sent gave me this ip range: inetnum: 202.205.176.0 - 202.205.191.255 That shouldn't have even been seen it should have been blocked by the 202/8 drop rule before fail2ban even saw it. Is that not so? Suggestions welcome. Thanks. Dave. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track stuff. You don't really have to design a system for build automation/tracking since there are several free ones available. Of course there is a tradeoff in terms of how quickly the automation would win back the time it takes to configure it. We are working on a new website design. We opened up a new QAWeb. We have an announce list. All great, and much appreciated, particularly compared to previous postings that implied that nothing needed to change or was ever going to. Still, I don't see how these help with the underlying issue of resources unless the bottleneck is in post-build QA. As far as build logs are concerned, they reside on the build server ... where we had people try to break into. That machine is now hidden and references to its name are also hidden. We can't have people pounding away against important servers ... there is no such thing as a completely secure setup. We therefore will not make our build machines open to the public. Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates. It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. But, most of both the 'pounding' and security issues can be handled with a simple caching reverse-proxy server easily configured in squid/apache/nginx, etc.. And with build automation frameworks like jenkins/hudson, the results and logs are collated on a central server that mostly does scheduling, not the actual work: http://ci.jenkins-ci.org/builds. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
On 5/16/2011 1:05 PM, Drew wrote: I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com This may be a non-issue but have you tried compiling stuff before on this machine? Most of the VPS system's I've seen in operation have stripped out the build tools for performance security reasons. If they let you add to the base install, try: yum groupinstall Development Tools Development Libraries and maybe X Software Development. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] issue with fail2ban letting IP's through
On 16/05/11 19:16, David Mehler wrote: Hello, I'm using fail2ban to block bots in conjunction with existing iptables rules. Here's a few rules from my iptables configuration: # # Set up a temporary pass rule so we don't lock ourselves out when #doing remote ssh iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT # # flush the current rules iptables -F # # Allow SSH connections on tcp port 22 iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # # Set default policies for INPUT, FORWARD and OUTPUT chains iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 202.0.0.0/8 -j DROP This morning the ssh fail2ban jail blocked this: 202.205.176.125 and the email sent gave me this ip range: inetnum: 202.205.176.0 - 202.205.191.255 That shouldn't have even been seen it should have been blocked by the 202/8 drop rule before fail2ban even saw it. Is that not so? Suggestions welcome. Thanks. Dave. Rules within a chain are evaluated in order, start to finish. In your INPUT chain you ACCEPT tcp connections on port 22 (SSH) *before* you DROP all traffic from 202.0.0.0/8. That is why fail2ban is seeing it. If that is not the intention then reverse the (relative) order of the two rules within your script. Just be careful not to lock yourself out if working remotely. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as widely used as centos gets penetrated and carefully targetted to slip trojans unnoticed into the final product this woudl be a holy grail to the sort of international espionage that is taking place today. be scared, be very scared. -- john r pierceN 37, W 123 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 01:24 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track stuff. You don't really have to design a system for build automation/tracking since there are several free ones available. Of course there is a tradeoff in terms of how quickly the automation would win back the time it takes to configure it. We are working on a new website design. We opened up a new QAWeb. We have an announce list. All great, and much appreciated, particularly compared to previous postings that implied that nothing needed to change or was ever going to. Still, I don't see how these help with the underlying issue of resources unless the bottleneck is in post-build QA. As far as build logs are concerned, they reside on the build server ... where we had people try to break into. That machine is now hidden and references to its name are also hidden. We can't have people pounding away against important servers ... there is no such thing as a completely secure setup. We therefore will not make our build machines open to the public. Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates. It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. But, most of both the 'pounding' and security issues can be handled with a simple caching reverse-proxy server easily configured in squid/apache/nginx, etc.. And with build automation frameworks like jenkins/hudson, the results and logs are collated on a central server that mostly does scheduling, not the actual work: http://ci.jenkins-ci.org/builds. Wonderful except it is a build server ... and certain things need to function without a proxy. It doesn't matter though, because regardless of what I do, it is not enough for you. I am already busting my ass to give a $2500.00 piece of software to you for free, to use as many times as you want to ... saving you as much money as $2500.00 x number_you_run Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free, but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need to setup elaborate systems. AND, I need to tell you exactly how I build it too. Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Netfilter connmark module libxt_statistic.so
Hello Everyone, I'm making an load balance ,on output packages IP from my firewall to Internet, with netfilter connmark and statistic match modules. it's necessary those two modules togethers to do the load balance on connection state. well I'm using CentOS 5.6 and I've searching on Internet but haven't found any package RPM that.this package come with iptables 1.4.x version and CentOS 5.6 still installs , for default, 1.3 iptables version. the package connmark it's ready for default on CetOS 5.6. but the statistic mach module doesn't. the module name is libxt_statistic.so and I've found it only available in build compile. anybody know if there is how update the iptables to 1.4 version in CentOS 5.6 by rpm packages? this way seem that is installed libxt_statistic.so module too. thank. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
on 5/16/2011 11:47 AM Johnny Hughes spake the following: Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? I hear ya Johnny... The only hurry I am in over 6 getting out is that FINALLY some of the whining will stop... For a little while... I saw the same sort of complaints at Whitebox, and it will never stop... I hope you don't just get fed up with the bitching and stop the project... No need to respond... Just go on doing what you need to do... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 1:47 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates. It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. But, most of both the 'pounding' and security issues can be handled with a simple caching reverse-proxy server easily configured in squid/apache/nginx, etc.. And with build automation frameworks like jenkins/hudson, the results and logs are collated on a central server that mostly does scheduling, not the actual work: http://ci.jenkins-ci.org/builds. Wonderful except it is a build server ... and certain things need to function without a proxy. That's not a particular problem. You can have a public reverse-proxy that knows how to access a subset of an otherwise firewalled or certificate-requiring site without affecting the other ways you can access the source side directly. It doesn't matter though, because regardless of what I do, it is not enough for you. I am already busting my ass to give a $2500.00 piece of software to you for free, to use as many times as you want to ... saving you as much money as $2500.00 xnumber_you_run Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free, but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need to setup elaborate systems. AND, I need to tell you exactly how I build it too. You are completely missing the point here, which is not to beat you up for not doing better with limited resources. I believe that by making the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open. That both reduces the need for you to bust your ass and speeds up the availability for everyone else. You may not agree that this would happen and of course it is your call, but please don't mischaracterize a suggestion that has been shown to work elsewhere as a personal demand for anything. Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? If you could look at this objectively from a user's side, would you be happy with a timeframe rounding up to a year? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as widely used as centos gets penetrated and carefully targetted to slip trojans unnoticed into the final product this woudl be a holy grail to the sort of international espionage that is taking place today. be scared, be very scared. Yes, but assuming they eat their own dog food and are running the same thing we are, if their servers are penetrated, yours will too even before whatever they are building ships. And it is something that debian seems to be able to handle. In any case, with full automation it would be easy enough to duplicate the final build on a trusted server and compare the results before distribution. Or for someone else to do it to verify from an outside perspective. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: I believe that by making the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open. a very wise man[1] once said adding more bodies to a late project just makes it later. 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month. this is NOT a software development project, where pieces of it can be torn off and worked on independently, then later integrated. this is a software build-and-integrate project where all the pieces have to be fit together and the bulk of the hard work is reverse engineering and recreating the correct build environment. [1] Fredrick P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month, 1975.36 years later, this book's fundamental premises are just as valid. -- john r pierceN 37, W 123 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 02:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: it is somewhat unsettling to think that the project itself considers that to be a problem. consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as widely used as centos gets penetrated and carefully targetted to slip trojans unnoticed into the final product this woudl be a holy grail to the sort of international espionage that is taking place today. be scared, be very scared. Yes, but assuming they eat their own dog food and are running the same thing we are, if their servers are penetrated, yours will too even before whatever they are building ships. And it is something that debian seems to be able to handle. In any case, with full automation it would be easy enough to duplicate the final build on a trusted server and compare the results before distribution. Or for someone else to do it to verify from an outside perspective. There is not a server in the world that I could not break into if I was on the same subnet ... and I am not even that smart. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bond empty after reboot
Greetings On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:50 PM, wessel van der aart wes...@postoffice.nl wrote: Hi all, ifcfg-bond0: DEVICE=bond0 IPADDR=xxx.xx.x.xx NETMASK=255.255.255.0 NETWORK=xxx.xx.x.xx BROADCAST=xxx.xx.x.xx GATEWAY= ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none USERCTL=no BONDING_MODULE_OPTS='mode=802.3ad miimon=80' TYPE=BOND ifcfg-eth0 (same for eth1,eth2 eth3): # Intel Corporation 82576 Gigabit Network Connection DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none USERCTL=no MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=YES TYPE=ethernet Have you rtried removing tins line.? usel locate bonding.txt it provides a concise and correct way HWADDR=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx -- Regards, Rajagopal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 2:52 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: I believe that by making the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open. a very wise man[1] once said adding more bodies to a late project just makes it later. 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month. If we were talking about a month, well probably no one would be talking... this is NOT a software development project, where pieces of it can be torn off and worked on independently, then later integrated. And yet, there were 3 completely unrelated paths where only one had progress at a time. Or so we've been told. And that's not exactly a surprising situation even though they may not coincide frequently. this is a software build-and-integrate project where all the pieces have to be fit together and the bulk of the hard work is reverse engineering and recreating the correct build environment. Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. [1] Fredrick P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month, 1975.36 years later, this book's fundamental premises are just as valid. I wonder what he would have said about google's approach to, say, translation or voice recognition where the results depend on availability of massive amounts of input as much as anything else. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Johnny Hughes wrote: There is not a server in the world that I could not break into if I was on the same subnet ... and I am not even that smart. maybe but you have the distinct advantage of having your private trojans in every centos system out there ;-) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, Janne Janski AKA JNixus Nyman Founder of Newman IT Solutions Ltd -Original Message- From: centos-requ...@centos.org Reply-to: centos@centos.org To: centos@centos.org Subject: CentOS Digest, Vol 76, Issue 16 Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:00:02 -0400 Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 19:40 +0100, Janne TH. Nyman wrote: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, Janne Janski AKA JNixus Nyman Founder of Newman IT Solutions Ltd +1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. so you are volunteering to take over 4.next or 5.x or whatever when the time comes ? you can come up with the build infrastructure and develop this automation in the meantime? I'd suggest starting with recreating 5.6 by working from 5.5 and the RHEL 5,6 SRPMs exclusively. let us know how long it takes from scratch, ok? you don't mind that we-the-community would want our packagers vetted by demonstrating the ability to deliver... consider this a test run. -- john r pierceN 37, W 123 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. so you are volunteering to take over 4.next or 5.x or whatever when the time comes ? you can come up with the build infrastructure and develop this automation in the meantime? I'd suggest starting with recreating 5.6 by working from 5.5 and the RHEL 5,6 SRPMs exclusively. let us know how long it takes from scratch, ok? you don't mind that we-the-community would want our packagers vetted by demonstrating the ability to deliver... consider this a test run. No, but I'm not the only member of the public. And your suggestion of starting by reproducing someone else's work from scratch instead of building on it would be like Linus telling everyone to just write their own unix-like kernel before trying to add to it. If he had done that instead of letting others build on the existing work we wouldn't be talking about usable Linux distributions today at all. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. You know Les, you're talking in hypotheticals. Johnny and the other CentOS developers are actually *doing* the work. Everything is easy when you're not actually doing it. If you know so much about *how* it should be done, why don't you and your like-minded friends start your own rebuild project? That would give you something else to do rather than sniping from the sidelines here. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman jny...@jbtec.org wrote: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, Hopefully, deep down, the CentOS developers know that it's the same few whiners over and over and over and over again... like broken records. They've got it in their mind that they know so much better how it *should* be done. Armchair quarterbacks always *know* better. At any rate, +1. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman jny...@jbtec.org wrote: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, Janne Janski AKA JNixus Nyman Founder of Newman IT Solutions Ltd These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars. The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to result in a discussion that ultimately improves the project. Ass kissing never has the potential to improve the project. Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very angry people who feel like they wasted their time promoting and using CentOS. // Brian Mathis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: No, but I'm not the only member of the public. And your suggestion of starting by reproducing someone else's work from scratch instead of building on it would be like Linus telling everyone to just write their own unix-like kernel before trying to add to it. If he had done that instead of letting others build on the existing work we wouldn't be talking about usable Linux distributions today at all. And yet that's what the CentOS developers originally had to do (and apparently had to do all over again with 6.0). So a little respect and gratitude would be in order, don't you think? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 11:50 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. so you are volunteering to take over 4.next or 5.x or whatever when the time comes ? you can come up with the build infrastructure and develop this automation in the meantime? I'd suggest starting with recreating 5.6 by working from 5.5 and the RHEL 5,6 SRPMs exclusively. let us know how long it takes from scratch, ok? you don't mind that we-the-community would want our packagers vetted by demonstrating the ability to deliver... consider this a test run. No, but I'm not the only member of the public. And your suggestion of starting by reproducing someone else's work from scratch instead of building on it would be like Linus telling everyone to just write their own unix-like kernel before trying to add to it. If he had done that instead of letting others build on the existing work we wouldn't be talking about usable Linux distributions today at all. The main fear the developers have is that somebody could steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system scripts. I think this is obvious by now. It is also pretty obvious that the developers have a strong hope that by keeping CentOS closed, somebody will notice their skills and will pay them a fortune for their knowledge by hiring them. This is my opinion and it is based on what I read on this list during the last months. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/11 1:51 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really predict how an open project will develop. You know Les, you're talking in hypotheticals. Johnny and the other CentOS developers are actually *doing* the work. Everything is easy when you're not actually doing it. If you know so much about *how* it should be done, why don't you and your like-minded friends start your own rebuild project? That would give you something else to do rather than sniping from the sidelines here. no, no. he wants someone ELSE to do that. see his last response to me. i'm done with this thread. ker-flush -- john r pierceN 37, W 123 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:51:22PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: You know Les, you're talking in hypotheticals. Johnny and the other CentOS developers are actually *doing* the work. Everything is easy when you're not actually doing it. If you know so much about *how* it should be done, why don't you and your like-minded friends start your own rebuild project? That would give you something else to do rather than sniping from the sidelines here. +1000 John -- Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. -- Marcus Aurelius (121-180), philosopher and writer pgpOA6jxnz3Jm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On May 16, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free, but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need to setup elaborate systems. AND, I need to tell you exactly how I build it too. Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. Clearly they have gotten a massive code base for free and though the cost of assembling it into a redistributable system is not inconsequential, it's clear that if this attitude was prevalent, we wouldn't have the massive code base available as it were. Craig ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Mathis These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars. The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to result in a discussion that ultimately improves the project. Ass kissing never has the potential to improve the project. Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very angry people who feel like they wasted their time promoting and using CentOS. Give me a break. Any human being, who's been working his ass off for nearly seven months to get out three separate releases of CentOS, would lose patience when all that comes from the sidelines is the constant drip, drip, drip of unending whining from a few repeat-o-matic cranks. I've basically ignored this mailing list for months because of it -- and have just recently come back to read it, and I'm already fed up with it. How the developers have put up with it for months, I have no idea. And, as for ass-kissing (as you so politely put it), I use and *like* CentOS and am grateful for all the work the developers put into it. And, especially since the ungrateful whiners can only bitch and bitch and bitch, I think every now and then the developers need to hear that there are those who appreciate their work. As I've told Les, if you know so much better how to do this, why don't you rebuild your own Red Hat distribution? So much easier to do it when you're not actually doing it, isn't it? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very angry people who feel like they wasted their time promoting and using CentOS. If they were so smart they'd roll up their sleeves and do it themselves. If they were so smart you'd think that in all the time they've spent bitching about things they would have been able to churn out a rebuild on their own. Additionally if they were so angry they'd spend some time looking into alternatives. The same crybabies are still here. The chances of a constructive discussion pretty much went away months ago; the signal/noise ratio on this list has gone from quite good to effectively white-noise over the past few months with the constant crap from the same few loudmouths. John -- An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. It's knowing where to go to find out what you need to know; and it's knowing how to use the information you get. -- Anatole France (1844-1924), member of the French Academy, 1921 Nobel Laureate in Literature pgpeYVNDlBGhb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiu r...@pengooin.net wrote: The main fear the developers have is that somebody could steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system scripts. I think this is obvious by now. It is also pretty obvious that the developers have a strong hope that by keeping CentOS closed, somebody will notice their skills and will pay them a fortune for their knowledge by hiring them. This is my opinion and it is based on what I read on this list during the last months. What a load of undiluted crap. They've been doing this for over seven years. But nothing is stopping you from starting your own Red Hat rebuild project. You *know* so much better how it *should* be done. Enlighten us. Actually do it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/2011 04:10 PM, Craig White wrote: On May 16, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free, but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need to setup elaborate systems. AND, I need to tell you exactly how I build it too. Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. Clearly they have gotten a massive code base for free and though the cost of assembling it into a redistributable system is not inconsequential, it's clear that if this attitude was prevalent, we wouldn't have the massive code base available as it were. And yet, we do have the massive code base. And Red Hat did not have to publish their build system, their build logs, their hidden dependencies, or anything else. All the had to do was follow the GPL. CentOS also publishes all our changes and follows the GPL. We publish build scripts and other things that Red Hat would never publish. And I am the bad guy. Really? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:10:28PM -0700, Craig White wrote: can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. You're missing the point. The disdain, if that's truly what Johnny is feeling, is only directed at a teeny tiny inconsequential portion of the of the user base. This would be the leeches that do nothing but bitch about those providing the free gravy that they use in their businesses but yet give absolutely nothing back in terms of tangible work or effort. Besides, that imaginary shackle you have around your ankle keeping you (used collectively) here isn't locked; you're free to find alternatives. John -- Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will. -- Jawaharlal Nehru pgp0u3Bqtivzl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. Clearly they have gotten a massive code base for free and though the cost of assembling it into a redistributable system is not inconsequential, it's clear that if this attitude was prevalent, we wouldn't have the massive code base available as it were. Disdain for users? You mean disgust for constant whiners, don't you? Strange to say, I share the developers disdain. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
on 5/16/2011 11:40 AM Janne TH. Nyman spake the following: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. I always wondered what was the best thing BEFORE sliced bread... LOL ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiur...@pengooin.net wrote: The main fear the developers have is that somebody could steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system scripts. I think this is obvious by now. It is also pretty obvious that the developers have a strong hope that by keeping CentOS closed, somebody will notice their skills and will pay them a fortune for their knowledge by hiring them. This is my opinion and it is based on what I read on this list during the last months. What a load of undiluted crap. Please keep this for yourself. They've been doing this for over seven years. But nothing is stopping you from starting your own Red Hat rebuild project. You *know* so much better how it *should* be done. Enlighten us. Actually do it. I never said I want to do it. I only said what the devs are obviously doing. Maybe 7+ years is too much waiting for somebody to come and fill their pockets. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
on 5/16/2011 11:40 AM Janne TH. Nyman spake the following: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. I always wondered what was the best thing BEFORE sliced bread... LOL ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I never thought sliced bread was all that great. Wouldn't it be better for people to donate money to help push things along faster? I mean if your really upset about how long its taken to come out why don't you donate some money to help the people who are working for free? IDK just my two cents. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:47:30 -0500 Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? Johnny please don't take this personally. I don't know who came with the expression: When you fight with a pig, you both get dirty - but the pig likes it They like it and your blood pressure rise. Not worth it. Don't listen to them. PS. I'm one of the silent majority! I run a few v4 and v5. Thanks for the hard work. -- Thanks http://www.911networks.com When the network has to work ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Mathis These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars. The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to result in a discussion that ultimately improves the project. Ass kissing never has the potential to improve the project. Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very angry people who feel like they wasted their time promoting and using CentOS. Give me a break. Any human being, who's been working his ass off for nearly seven months to get out three separate releases of CentOS, would lose patience when all that comes from the sidelines is the constant drip, drip, drip of unending whining from a few repeat-o-matic cranks. I've basically ignored this mailing list for months because of it -- and have just recently come back to read it, and I'm already fed up with it. How the developers have put up with it for months, I have no idea. And, as for ass-kissing (as you so politely put it), I use and *like* CentOS and am grateful for all the work the developers put into it. And, especially since the ungrateful whiners can only bitch and bitch and bitch, I think every now and then the developers need to hear that there are those who appreciate their work. As I've told Les, if you know so much better how to do this, why don't you rebuild your own Red Hat distribution? So much easier to do it when you're not actually doing it, isn't it? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 The constant drip drip drip, as you put it, is generated from the disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who asks how much longer or how they can help is immediately slapped down and told to go away. The understanding that's missing from the Devs and sycophants is that users are asking BECAUSE THEY CARE. BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PROJECT. BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LOT OF WORK. And their concern is met with nothing but derision and accusations of being constant freeloading whiners. As for appreciating the developers, that is what all of the posts complaining about the process are about. People complain they can't help. People complain they can't do anything. People complain that when they ask, they are shut out instead of welcomed in. All of this comes from a desire to help the project. The sycophants simply unable to have any real discussion. Those with criticisms have valid ones, but the responses do not actually address the problems -- they just ignite the flames. Anyone making personal attacks like calling people whiners or crybabies are really the ones causing the problem here, because there is no hope of ever making those constructive. While the whiners my not have done anything to help, what have the supporters done? Any one of them could start digging in to the available and possibly back-channel information to have something to supply other than calling people names. Surely working to get that information out to users would stop these constant email chains more constructively than the name-calling? So I guess anyone not doing that is also a freeloading leech? // Brian Mathis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/16/11 2:41 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: I never said I want to do it. ah, so what DID you say? you want someone unspecified to do a better/different job for you than someone else is already doing for free ? man, its easy to volunteer other people from the comfort of your desk. -- john r pierceN 37, W 123 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/17/2011 12:47 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 05/16/11 2:41 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: I never said I want to do it. ah, so what DID you say? you want someone unspecified to do a better/different job for you than someone else is already doing for free ? man, its easy to volunteer other people from the comfort of your desk. If you would re-read my email you would see that I only expressed my thoughts. I did not ask for somebody else to do it. If this is your reaction when somebody says what he thinks, you got issues. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: What a load of undiluted crap. Please keep this for yourself. Why when it's the truth. Does the truth hurt? I never said I want to do it. I only said what the devs are obviously doing. Maybe 7+ years is too much waiting for somebody to come and fill their pockets. s/want to do it/can do it/ John -- Human beings hardly ever learn from the experience of others. They learn; when they do, which isn't often, on their own, the hard way. -- Robert Heinlein (1907-1988), American science fiction writer, Time Enough for Love (1973) pgpP6cpIyxGzZ.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/17/2011 12:51 AM, John R. Dennison wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: What a load of undiluted crap. Please keep this for yourself. Why when it's the truth. Does the truth hurt? It may be the truth from your point of view. What I said in my initial post is what many companies i work with feel. If some of you can't say anything smarter than crap, then please focus for a few seconds before posting. I never said I want to do it. I only said what the devs are obviously doing. Maybe 7+ years is too much waiting for somebody to come and fill their pockets. s/want to do it/can do it/ John ___ 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] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:55:59AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: If some of you can't say anything smarter than crap, then please Please do the rest of us a favor and take your own advice. John -- People learn something every day, and a lot of times it's that what they learned the day before was wrong. -- Bill Vaughan (1915-1977), American columnist and author pgpH0LKFhdjXl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Radu Gheorghiu wrote: The main fear the developers have is that somebody could steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system scripts. I think this is obvious by now. 'obvious' to you or not, such is not the case with my view of the matter, nor indeed my practice not that CentOS is just the fruit of a binary build solution. The attention to 'getting it right' the first time, the trademark and branding changes, the art, the bug tracker, the mirror network and its 'backside management,' the mailing lists, IRC, forum, and wiki and more are 'part of the package' as well. Shall we also stop and describe how to set up Mailman, administer IRC channels, in formal detail? Doing so will do nothing to attain the 'goal' which I assume a vast 'silent majority' are eagerly awaiting Some others have set up alternative approaches ** even working forward from CentOS' of build SRPMS ** -- SME Server, and ClearOS come to mind, but their goals differ CentOS is not diminished by Scientific Linux, nor vice versa. I have communicated cordially with them on matters of common interest for years SME has such radically different goals as a project that people do not recognize the current CentOS roots; ClearOS again had its own 'take' on the release contents, and has recently announced an intent to fork away from using CentOS SRPMs after several years following CentOS. Some of the build group from each were in the QA group for a while. There are other RPM based, upstream derived, rebuild projects out there as well, that a person has to look closely, and know the history, or read the sources, to see where they came from I've repeatedly published my approach to the build solve, including a solution written after solving the parts of upstream's '6' sources in which I am interested. I have such running in private release. I've offered several times here to offer private guidance 'through the rough spots' for people attempting such a upstream cloning Some of the earliest content in the CentOS wiki was articles about build environments, and building as non-root, predating the transition by serious builders to mock and other 'in a clean chroot' approaches But the build for the first bootstrap '6' does not encounter the same issues that '5' or '4' encountered. I've said that as clearly as I can before, as have others on the CentOS build group, and people who treat a rebuild as a thought experiment to be talked to death, will NEVER understand that. One has to DO it, to see and understand the way the solution to the rebuild problem mutates over time I see later in this thread 'conspiracy theory' reference' to a 'massive code base' --- what a crock. Build-systems dating from the old Red Hat RHL 'beehive' fifteen years ago started as Rube Goldberg contraptions needing constant love and attention from their tenders. I am told by one such 'tender' from that era, that it always seemed to break after midnight, necessitating sometimes 'driving back to office' to repair and restart The 'state of the art' as to packaging, and automation change over time, but there still needs to be a person who understands the build automation system, able to go in a 'kill' a hung job and experienced eyes to diagnose and patch around the inevitable problems that surface in the final few percent of the packages. And anyone who thinks that patching 'anaconda' (the installer) is a well defined task has no conception of the enormity of the changes over time that anaconda has gone through. I am tremendously unhappy with the changes with the anaconda TUI mode under upstream's '6' and once a CentOS 6 emerges, I can foresee much support load with people adversely affected A couple have actually followed through the work of rebuilding and integrating the upstream's '6' sources (not the people who would rather carp and troll here, of course), and I've mentioned privately helping other people building the latest upstream sources from scratch with their efforts. At least two have working sub-sets to their interest and project goal, complete with installers, at the upstream's '6' level heck -- In looking at my local developmental 'crash and burn' laptop, which started live as a CentOS 5 unit 14 months ago, I see over 30 ** POST ** upstream '6' level packages. Looking, I see that my day-to-day office developmental workstation (a bit over three years old at this point) has 1101 of 2287 total packages that are local deviations from C 5 (mostly pushing in financial and statistical tool-chains, but also developmental tools ... automake, m4, libtool, and so forth) Sometimes to reproduce a bug, I need to deploy a fresh machine image, just to make sure my local changes to not mask something -- the changes by upstream to the named configuration files generation comes to mind as one I needed to 'revert' back to a
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:08:47PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: other RPM based, upstream derived, rebuild projects out there as well, that a person has to look closely, and know the history, or read the sources, to see where they came from And then there's commercial projects, such as Citrix Xen Server (one of the leading competitors to VMware). I wonder what that's built on. Let's look... # cat /etc/redhat-release XenServer release 5.6.0-31188p (xenenterprise) # rpm -q centos-release centos-release-5-4.el5.centos.1 Dang; that evil CentOS project gets everywhere... -- rgds Stephen ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/15/2011 06:10 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a their new releases. What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora. I don't know about Ubuntu, I don't use it. Fedora, on the other hand publishes their schedule: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule And the release life cycle: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle And their release criteria: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria And release engineering documentation, including the names of responsible persons and directions for getting involved: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering And standard operating procedures: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP The release criteria includes a Bugzilla list for a release blocker bug which shows users what issues currently need to be resolved before the release. Users are very well informed about the state of the project. Fedora uses Koji to build packages. Users can view build logs in the Koji interface as well. After building packages, maintainers push to Bodhi, where users can test the package and indicate success or failure before the package is finally published. If CentOS were run even remotely like Fedora, these discussions wouldn't come up. Is there someplace I do not know about where these distributions tell you what they are having trouble building? Apparently. Show me another list where the developers interact with the users as much as this one. My interactions with Fedora's developers and maintainers have always been both pleasant and productive. CentOS has never been secretive. We published examples of our build scripts for the RPMs and the disros, the mock we use and plague. Something Red Hat has never done. It doesn't always seem that way to users. Certainly, the trend has been to greater openness and more insight. That has been encouraging. In February of '09, Karanbir published a blog on the r-v-m routine. I vaguely recall that sometime in the years before that he stated that the scripts used to build the release would not be released, which was a significant part of the reason that I, personally, have regarded the project as somewhat secretive. More generally, I would describe the project as somewhat secretive by virtue of the lack of communication with users. I don't intend to imply that the developers are malicious, just that many users clearly feel like they do not and cannot understand the state of the project. Look, I appreciate the new QA site. It's great. I sort of remember someone linking to a page with a list of the tasks blocking the release of C6, even though I can't find it now. That also makes me a happier user. However, I can appreciate CentOS and the work of its developers without thinking that it is perfect, right? Is that too much to ask? Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following the licensing requirements and be happy with that? Wow. I guess not. All of that is more or less a distraction from the point at which this branch of the thread began. One person suggested that 6.1 might take only a month, and that seems highly questionable. Without making any value judgments about whether or not the distribution *should* be available in one month, or whether some other project can do it faster, and without questioning the competence of anyone, I still think it's legitimate to express doubts that a release can be made ready in that time frame. There is no recent evidence that users can expect that. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/15/2011 07:00 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: So, when you take 5.6 out of the mix (taking into account the three releases at once), the average time from Red Hat 5.x release to CentOS 5.x release is 41.5 days. And 5.5 was 44 days. Your point? There is a general trend toward longer delays between upstream and CentOS releases, with occasional anomalies of *extremely* long delays. That is the point. Up until 5.6 the longest it took for a CentOS 5.x release was 69 days, 5.4 took 49 days and 5.5 took 44 days. Is that going up or down? From the beginning of the series? Generally longer. Take 5.3 out of the mix (as well as the three-release 5.6) and you've got an average of 36 days. And all of 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 have taken longer than that. Just barely over a month. Even with 5.3 it averages about a month and a half. 5.6 (and 5.3) were the aberrations, not the average. Thanks for the figures. They don't prove your point. I think they do. Even when you cherry-pick the data as you did. Tell you what: Plot the release delays on a graph using the release as the X axis and the delay as the Y axis. Based on that graph, plot the trend of the data. Even if you exclude the outlying data, I can't imagine a way to honestly plot a trend that isn't growing. I can't even begin to comprehend the logical failure behind the idea that because SL and CentOS are keeping up with each other that CentOS is not getting worse. Again, Dag interjected only to ask why any reasonable person would expect 6.1 to take only one month when 5.6 took three. The fact that there is a general trend toward longer release delays supports that question. Again, three releases at once. For certain definitions of at once. Upstream 6.0 was released in November. 5.6 was release about 2 months later, and work on C6 was stopped in order to get 5.6 out. 4.9 was out about a month after that. CentOS was, as far as we know, working on 4.9 and 5.6 at the same time, but not on 6. Moreover, for the near future, there will continue to be multiple releases from upstream within a couple of months of each other. Is there any rational basis on which we should expect that the CentOS releases will no longer take several months under the same conditions that they've been faced with? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Brian Mathis The constant drip drip drip, as you put it, is generated from the disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who asks how much longer or how they can help is immediately slapped down and told to go away. Bullcrap. I've seen the same old droning by the same posters for at least a year now. It's not constructive criticism it's whining. When the developers tell you that adding more and more work will slow (not speed) CentOS development, they probably know what they're talking about. You think? The understanding that's missing from the Devs and sycophants is that users are asking BECAUSE THEY CARE. BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PROJECT. BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LOT OF WORK. And their concern is met with nothing but derision and accusations of being constant freeloading whiners. When all I see is constant whining, and empty threats to move to another distribution, what else can I conclude except that whiners will be whiners. If you suggest something, and it's rejected (for whatever reason) it's no longer constructive criticism to keep droning on about it. I don't see concern, I see whining. As for appreciating the developers, that is what all of the posts complaining about the process are about. People complain they can't help. People complain they can't do anything. People complain that when they ask, they are shut out instead of welcomed in. All of this comes from a desire to help the project. No, what *some* users whine about is that they can't control the process. They're miffed because their great suggestions are rejected. I realize that I'm probably lumping all complainers into the same category -- sorry but I'm fed up with the constant drip, drip, drip. At the very least let the developers get out from under the workload before offering yet more constructive criticism. The sycophants simply unable to have any real discussion. Those with criticisms have valid ones, but the responses do not actually address the problems -- they just ignite the flames. Anyone making personal attacks like calling people whiners or crybabies are really the ones causing the problem here, because there is no hope of ever making those constructive. Ignite the flames? Right. When I come here I see whining. I see complaints about the time required to rebuild CentOS. I see myself called a sycophant for defending the developers. But I'm the one igniting the flames. What a pant load. While the whiners my not have done anything to help, what have the supporters done? Any one of them could start digging in to the available and possibly back-channel information to have something to supply other than calling people names. Surely working to get that information out to users would stop these constant email chains more constructively than the name-calling? So I guess anyone not doing that is also a freeloading leech? We supporters (like he quotes, by the way) don't see the huge problem the concerned constantly yammer on about. We appreciate all the hard work and realize that CentOS is not Red Hat and that, if we absolutely have to have the newest releases immediately, we can go with the upstream. Good thing the concerned don't engage in name calling like the us sycophants. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Janne TH. Nyman wrote: Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and providing considering how their users treat them. Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing that happened since sliced bread. Come on, community, where is your love? My 2 pence, +1 Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Perhaps an interesting development....
Well, not to take away too much from the tinderbox, but I'd like to point everyone's attention to: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-open-source-love-expands-centos-li Headline: Microsoft's open source love-in expands with CentOS Linux support Short version: Microsoft now supports CentOS officially in Hyper-V. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Gordon Messmer wrote: On 05/15/2011 06:10 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a their new releases. What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora. I don't know about Ubuntu, I don't use it. Fedora, on the other hand publishes their schedule: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule And the release life cycle: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle And their release criteria: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria And release engineering documentation, including the names of responsible persons and directions for getting involved: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering And standard operating procedures: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP The release criteria includes a Bugzilla list for a release blocker bug which shows users what issues currently need to be resolved before the release. Users are very well informed about the state of the project. Fedora uses Koji to build packages. Users can view build logs in the Koji interface as well. After building packages, maintainers push to Bodhi, where users can test the package and indicate success or failure before the package is finally published. If CentOS were run even remotely like Fedora, these discussions wouldn't come up. There is no way that CentOS or any other REBUILD project can be run as DEVELOPMENT project where you can build as you like. Scan both mailing lists few months back where those differences were thoroughly explained. snip All of that is more or less a distraction from the point at which this branch of the thread began. One person suggested that 6.1 might take only a month, and that seems highly questionable. Without making any value judgments about whether or not the distribution *should* be available in one month, or whether some other project can do it faster, and without questioning the competence of anyone, I still think it's legitimate to express doubts that a release can be made ready in that time frame. There is no recent evidence that users can expect that. It started much earlier then my post about around 1 month timeframe, I would say a week or so at least in this thread allone. Real start of discussion started several months ago. If you are brave enough, read entire mail lists (both of them) and keep track of who said what, when and as a response to what. Then you will have slightly different perspective. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. - aurf ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Perhaps an interesting development....
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: Well, not to take away too much from the tinderbox, but I'd like to point everyone's attention to: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-open-source-love-expands-centos-li Headline: Microsoft's open source love-in expands with CentOS Linux support Short version: Microsoft now supports CentOS officially in Hyper-V. I wouldn't say it has anything with a love-in for open source, it's bowing to reality. CentOS is one of the biggest Web Server OSes and Microsoft was probably failing to gain market from VMWare because they didn't support CentOS. They also probably think it's a way to harm Red Hat. We'll see how it works out for them. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a lull in the whining. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On May 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a lull in the whining. I know, once Idol finishes and Centos 6 relz, we'll have to find some thing else to rail about. - aurf ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: On May 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Same weekly/bi-monthly BS. YAA It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows. This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a lull in the whining. I know, once Idol finishes and Centos 6 relz, we'll have to find some thing else to rail about. I guess 6.1 is around the corner. Heck, this particular thread could still be going by the time 7.0 comes out. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Ron Blizzard rb4cen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Brian Mathis The constant drip drip drip, as you put it, is generated from the disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who asks how much longer or how they can help is immediately slapped down and told to go away. Bullcrap. I've seen the same old droning by the same posters for at least a year now. It's not constructive criticism it's whining. When the developers tell you that adding more and more work will slow (not speed) CentOS development, they probably know what they're talking about. You think? The understanding that's missing from the Devs and sycophants is that users are asking BECAUSE THEY CARE. BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE PROJECT. BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LOT OF WORK. And their concern is met with nothing but derision and accusations of being constant freeloading whiners. When all I see is constant whining, and empty threats to move to another distribution, what else can I conclude except that whiners will be whiners. If you suggest something, and it's rejected (for whatever reason) it's no longer constructive criticism to keep droning on about it. I don't see concern, I see whining. As for appreciating the developers, that is what all of the posts complaining about the process are about. People complain they can't help. People complain they can't do anything. People complain that when they ask, they are shut out instead of welcomed in. All of this comes from a desire to help the project. No, what *some* users whine about is that they can't control the process. They're miffed because their great suggestions are rejected. I realize that I'm probably lumping all complainers into the same category -- sorry but I'm fed up with the constant drip, drip, drip. At the very least let the developers get out from under the workload before offering yet more constructive criticism. The sycophants simply unable to have any real discussion. Those with criticisms have valid ones, but the responses do not actually address the problems -- they just ignite the flames. Anyone making personal attacks like calling people whiners or crybabies are really the ones causing the problem here, because there is no hope of ever making those constructive. Ignite the flames? Right. When I come here I see whining. I see complaints about the time required to rebuild CentOS. I see myself called a sycophant for defending the developers. But I'm the one igniting the flames. What a pant load. While the whiners my not have done anything to help, what have the supporters done? Any one of them could start digging in to the available and possibly back-channel information to have something to supply other than calling people names. Surely working to get that information out to users would stop these constant email chains more constructively than the name-calling? So I guess anyone not doing that is also a freeloading leech? We supporters (like he quotes, by the way) don't see the huge problem the concerned constantly yammer on about. We appreciate all the hard work and realize that CentOS is not Red Hat and that, if we absolutely have to have the newest releases immediately, we can go with the upstream. Good thing the concerned don't engage in name calling like the us sycophants. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 People don't complain just for the fun of it (if that's the world you live in, I feel sorry for you), they complain because something is bothering them. In this case, it is the very real and measurable delays in releases that seem to be getting longer. Release delays are an incontrovertible fact in this case, and anyone arguing otherwise needs their logic unit replaced. The case becomes even stronger given that, as you say, people have been complaining for at least a year now. That shows a long term pattern of the same issue coming up over and over and bothering people. There really can be no stronger case that is supported by both logic and evidence that there is a problem. It has been mentioned in numerous blog posts, twitter posts, and tech magazines. Given that the issue is so clear, it adds insult to insult when someone asks about it and is treated like the problem doesn't exist. Suggestions given by people are rejected flat out not because they don't like the suggestion, but by countering that the problem doesn't exist. This is what's so inflammatory and causes so many flame wars. Having a constructive discussion is derailed most frequently not by the complainers, but by the if-you-don't-like-it-get-off-my-lawns. // Brian Mathis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Brian Mathis People don't complain just for the fun of it (if that's the world you live in, I feel sorry for you), they complain because something is bothering them. In this case, it is the very real and measurable delays in releases that seem to be getting longer. Release delays are an incontrovertible fact in this case, and anyone arguing otherwise needs their logic unit replaced. Up until 6.0 (with three releases at once 6.0, 5.6 and 4.9) we've seen the average delay for 5.x releases was 41.5 days. 5.5 came out in 44 days. If you can't wait a month and a half (or even two months) you should probably buy Red Hat. The case becomes even stronger given that, as you say, people have been complaining for at least a year now. That shows a long term pattern of the same issue coming up over and over and bothering people. There really can be no stronger case that is supported by both logic and evidence that there is a problem. It has been mentioned in numerous blog posts, twitter posts, and tech magazines. No, the same *very* few people have been complaining for over a year now. And they're not just complaining about delays, they're complaining about lack of community input into what constitutes CentOS. Even to the point of saying that they should be in the loop in deciding what goes into CentOS (like Fedora). News to whiners, CentOS is a rebuild project, the goal is to rebuild Red Hat. (No further input needed on that subject.) As for length of time, CentOS 5.5 came out less than a year ago. It took 44 days. Again, if that's too long of a wait, maybe you should move to Red Hat. Given that the issue is so clear, it adds insult to insult when someone asks about it and is treated like the problem doesn't exist. Suggestions given by people are rejected flat out not because they don't like the suggestion, but by countering that the problem doesn't exist. This is what's so inflammatory and causes so many flame wars. Having a constructive discussion is derailed most frequently not by the complainers, but by the if-you-don't-like-it-get-off-my-lawns. No, the issue isn't that clear. The average time of releases has slipped from the original 28 days to 41.5 days (pre 5.6 and the triple whammy). For me the real issue *is* the whining. The constant drip, drip, dripping... and I'm just reading the mailing list. Imagine what it must be like for those who are actually doing the work. Nothing is holding you to CentOS, so I'm guessing (despite the delays) it must fill a need you have. Maybe a little understanding (putting yourself in the other person's shoes) and a bit gratitude should be forthcoming. And, by the way, not directed specifically at you, but reading between the lines it appears that one issue may be that some contractors are selling cheap Red Hat to their customers and then, when the customers ask Where's the update? they're scrambling to explain the situation. They need to be up front. We're using a Red Hat rebuild, CentOS... updates are delayed. It's the nature of a rebuild. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:37 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: And, by the way, not directed specifically at you, but reading between the lines it appears that one issue may be that some contractors are selling cheap Red Hat to their customers and then, when the customers ask Where's the update? they're scrambling to explain the situation. They need to be up front. We're using a Red Hat rebuild, CentOS... updates are delayed. It's the nature of a rebuild. +1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] So sorry! was: Re: EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
As the OP for this thread, it saddens me to see that the thread I started has now been used as a forum for behavior of the worst kind seen in professional circles. I'm a longtime user of CentOS and merely wanted to know of users' past experiences transitioning between SL and CentOS. My first experience with CentOS was as a transition from Whitebox to CentOS, and the process was as simple as swapping out perhap 3 RPMs and a yum update. That's it, and that same server is still chugging along today many years later. Both CentOS and WBEL had the same goal, near-perfect compatibility with RHEL, but SL has slightly different goals. What are users' past experiences doing a hot swap out of SL for CentOS and/or vice versa? I have tremendoud respect for the CentOS project. The developers here cast an extremely long shadow that we should all admire and respect. This is a bit of a dark time here, prompted by a delayed release of EL6 that was already delayed by Red Hat for their own (probably similar) reasons. SysAdmin frustration is at a high point as a result of these combined factors, causing many involved to question even the very best of decisions. I suspect that the many requests for ETAs are exacerbating the issue that the CentOS developers simply cannot predict a final release date, which is further exacerbated by the otherwise noteworthy, high-quality QA now in place, which is causing requests for build changes that delay the release and cause need for further QA checks on packages rebuild due to deps changes. It's a perfect storm of factors that, together, result in the current situation. I'm a developer; this type of situation is unfortunately common and can be frustrating for all involved, and just cannot be completely avoided! The choices are clear, however: 1) Stick w/CentOS, get a high quality, highly compatible release at little/no cost, with an uncertain release date. 2) Switch to SL, get a high quality, reduced compatibility release (due to slightly different goals and qualities) at little/no cost, right now; 3) Switch to RHEL, get a quality release at significant cost, right now. 4) Complain loudly about how it's not perfect and/or get angry at people who question your motives and/or competence after years of otherwise successful cooperation. I wish option #4 was not so commonly exercised here. It really might be a good time to consider moderation. Anybody want to volunteer as a moderator? -Benjamin Smith -- 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] So sorry! was: Re: EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Smith li...@benjamindsmith.com wrote: The choices are clear, however: 1) Stick w/CentOS, get a high quality, highly compatible release at little/no cost, with an uncertain release date. I would say the uncertain release date is pretty much moot now, as CentOS has reached QA. According to the calendar, the date CentOS (tentatively) is going to start syncing to the mirrors is May 31st. http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/ -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] xargs with max each line / argument
How do I pass xargs input one line at a time to subsequent command?
For example I want to install rubygems by reading a text file as shown
below, however the arguments are getting passed all at once to the
'gem install' command. I hace tried -L (max-lines) and -n (max args)
options, but it didn't work. What's missing here?? Any help?
$ cat gem.list.1
mkrf
rake
xmlparser
$ awk '{ print $0 }' gem.list.1 | xargs -L 1 -0 -I name sudo gem install name
ERROR: could not find gem mkrf
rake
xmlparser
locally or in a repository
thanks,
neuby.r
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] So sorry! was: Re: EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:17 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote: I wish option #4 was not so commonly exercised here. It really might be a good time to consider moderation. Anybody want to volunteer as a moderator? The Centos ML does quite well without a moderator imho. No need to go draconian like other projects/'communities' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xargs with max each line / argument
On 5/17/11 12:36 AM, neubyr wrote:
How do I pass xargs input one line at a time to subsequent command?
For example I want to install rubygems by reading a text file as shown
below, however the arguments are getting passed all at once to the
'gem install' command. I hace tried -L (max-lines) and -n (max args)
options, but it didn't work. What's missing here?? Any help?
$ cat gem.list.1
mkrf
rake
xmlparser
$ awk '{ print $0 }' gem.list.1 | xargs -L 1 -0 -I name sudo gem install name
ERROR: could not find gem mkrf
rake
xmlparser
locally or in a repository
The -0 to xargs says your items will be null-terminated, but they aren't. And
you don't really need awk to pick the first field out of a one-field line, just
cat it or let xargs read it directly with gem.list.1
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Problem Making Tarballs
Les, I installed the development tools and development libraries, as you suggested. I even tried to install packages x*.x86_64 There were some unresolved dependencies in the latter, so I used --skip-broken with yum. There was a report of conflicting files, so i don't know how much was actually installed. Anyway, when I run autogen.sh configure make on a read-only copy of the liblouis svn repository I get the following errors. ../libtool: line 826: X--tag=CC: command not found ../libtool: line 859: libtool: ignoring unknown tag : command not found ../libtool: line 826: X--mode=compile: command not found ../libtool: line 992: *** Warning: inferring the mode of operation is deprecated.: command not found ../libtool: line 993: *** Future versions of Libtool will require --mode=MODE be specified.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xgcc: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-DHAVE_CONFIG_H: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I.: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../../gnulib: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../liblouis: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-g: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-O2: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MT: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MD: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MP: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X-MF: command not found ../libtool: line 1136: X.deps/progname.Tpo: No such file or directory ../libtool: line 1136: X-c: command not found ../libtool: line 1188: Xprogname.lo: command not found ../libtool: line 1193: libtool: compile: cannot determine name of library object from `': command not found make[3]: *** [progname.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 This repository works on my home Linux machine, which is older than the vps. Thanks, John On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:27:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/16/2011 1:05 PM, Drew wrote: I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com This may be a non-issue but have you tried compiling stuff before on this machine? Most of the VPS system's I've seen in operation have stripped out the build tools for performance security reasons. If they let you add to the base install, try: yum groupinstall Development Tools Development Libraries and maybe X Software Development. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer Abilitiessoft, Inc. http://www.abilitiessoft.com Madison, Wisconsin USA Developing software for people with disabilities ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
