Re: [CentOS-virt] using local media file to install guest
On 10/30/2011 05:16 PM, Charles Polisher wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 06:11:02PM -0700, Eric Shubert wrote: On 10/26/2011 04:56 PM, Bob Hoffman wrote: Wrong. You're making this way more difficult than it is. Just set up your host as in the directions, and when you get to the point of creating a VM guest, jump to the part about setting up virt-manager, but set that up on a workstation/laptop. On ubuntu for instance, you simply install the virt-manager package. Then create your VM guest using virt-manager. It runs on the workstation, but the VM is created on the server, via a network connection. It's really pretty slick. You're right to not want to put X on your server. And you don't need to. It strikes me that OP is trying to do something worth doing -- install from the (apparently broken) command line on the local host from local media. When some critical infrastructure has broken, I often depend on the ability to work with minimal dependencies. Requiring an operational network plus a 2nd, remote host that has a running X environment seems like too many dependencies for my taste. That it /can/ be accomplished that way does not mean that it /should/ be. I don't necessarily disagree, in theory. All it takes to connect remotely though is a laptop with a crossover cable. I wouldn't consider that to be too many dependencies. Pretty much just commodity (think crash cart) stuff. My servers are typically all headless, with this sort of access. Of course, if the CLI command has a bug, we should do what we can to help to get it fixed. In this case though, creating a VM using virt-manager is a good deal easier than using the CLI, so it's just easier to do it that way. As the OP has so much time invested, the next step could be to get strace, gdb, and the source code and start bug hunting. But one has to pick one's battles. Agreed. -- -Eric 'shubes' ___ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
Re: [CentOS] Intel wireless firmware
Vreme: 10/30/2011 02:23 AM, Ron Loftin piše: I don't see a way to file an issue on the repoforge Web site. I just filed an RFE with ELRepo to ask for this. Note in Repoforge's spec says: EL6 ships with ipw2200-firmware-3.1-4.el6 so there is no need to update it, it should work out of the box. Even aTrpms has only 3.0.9. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/21/2011 9:23 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 10/21/2011 06:25 AM, Steve Walsh wrote: On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e: As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages that are introduced in CR repo already PASSED QA testing, but are in limbo because there are issues with building ISO Nope. http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR The continuous release ( CR ) repository makes generally available packages that will appear in the next point release of CentOS, on a testing and *hotfix* basis until formally released. System administrators who choose to opt-in to this process can access the newly built packages, as soon as they are exported from the build system. They are less comprehensively reviewed in the QA validation stage. There is SOME QA ... just not all the QA that they get as part of the main release. They are not right off the build and into the server ... we do our functionality test suite prior to pushing CR (and other tests, and look for repo closure). They are fairly well vetted. We are trying to serve two masters here ... fast release and fully tested release. CR is the middle of that and a compromise that should work and not break things AND still allow us to do the testing we want for the main release too. So, you should expect more issues from CR than the main tree ... but the risk should be minimal for any kind of major breakage. For what its worth, I use CR on the machines I manage in production. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner. Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing delay. The security of many machines is now at stake with these continued delays. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/21/2011 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote: On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: Giles Coochey wrote: So Centos 6.0 is EOL? not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you? Read this: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/ ___ Thanks. I see that. However, if I install whatever latest version of an operating system distribution. I expect to be able to run something that will give me stable security-updates for that distribution. It appears that this is not the case, and my only option is to take my servers down the beta route to Centos 6.1 Release Candidates. Other than that - the only advice given so far is: remain vulnerable to attack. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term support like Centos. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/21/2011 12:54 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote: Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now, you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there were updates. All of a sudden, there are *no* updates for the 6.0 point release, which is a major change in what everyone expected, based on history. this is the way it has always been: once upstream releases x.y+1 , there are no more updates to x.y (in upstream and therefore also in centos), until centos releases x.y+1 . Yes, but that used to be transparent, because the centos x.y+1 release happened quickly so it didn't matter that the update repo was held back until an iso build was done. Yes, and NOW the release process is MUCH harder. Red Hat used to have an AS release that contained everything ... we build that and we get everything. Nice and simple. Build all the packages, look at it against the AS iso set ... done. Two weeks was about as long as it took. Now, for version 6, they have: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux HPC Node (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation FasTrack (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server FasTrack (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop FasTrack (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Scalable File System (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Resilient Storage (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Load Balancer (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux HPC Node FasTrack (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Performance Network (v. 6) Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization They have the same install groups with different packages based on the above groupings, so we have to do some kind of custom generation of the comps files to things work. They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs ... and they have completely changed their Authorized Use Policy so that we can NOT login to RHN and use anything that is not on a public FTP server or on an ISO set ... effectively cutting us off from the ability to check anything on the optional channel. Now we have to engineer a compilation of all those groupings, we have to figure out what parts of the optional channels go at the point release and which ones do not (the ones that are upgrades). Sometimes the only way to tell is when something does not build correctly and you have reverse an optional package to a previous version for the build, etc. We have to use anaconda to build our ISOs and upstream is using something else to build theirs .. so anaconda NEVER works anymore out of the box. We get ISOs (or usb images) that do not work and have to basically redesign anaconda. We can't look at upstream build logs, we can't get all the binary RPMs for testing and be within the Terms of Service. And with the new release, it seems that they have purposely broken the rpmmacros, and do not care to fix it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=743229 So, trust me, it is MUCH more complicated now than it was with previous releases to build. With the 5.7 release, there were several SRPMS that did not make it to the public FTP server without much prompting from us. And with the Authorized Use Policy, I can not just go to RHN and grab that SRPM and use it. If it is not public, we can no longer release it. So, the short answer is, it now takes longer. Thanks, Johnny Hughes ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The results speak for themselves. Nothing against the Centos folks you are now being actively worked against by Redhat itself. This is going to slowly choke off community builds of RHEL...and force them to fedora. Due to this decicion byt he upstream is why I'm moving to Ubuntu LTS for my new servers. It is unfortunate that the abuse by Orcale of the exact procedure you use that prompted Red Hat to take these packaging measures. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše: And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The results speak for themselves. Nothing against the Centos folks you are now being actively worked against by Redhat itself. This is going to slowly choke off community builds of RHEL...and force them to fedora. Due to this decicion byt he upstream is why I'm moving to Ubuntu LTS for my new servers. It is unfortunate that the abuse by Orcale of the exact procedure you use that prompted Red Hat to take these packaging measures. I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place. If need be, there can always be another repo that will be reserved for fast fixes that are not compatible with RHEL, like package with important fix that is not exactly compatible, but does the job same as upstream package. This would be only for unresolved packages with important fix, and only as long as complete fix is not completed. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:36 PM, William Warren piše: I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner. Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing delay. The security of many machines is now at stake with these continued delays. What packages EXACTLY have unresolved security fixes?? CentOS team, I think there should be a page with listing of all packages now completed, and the little info like nature of the upstream's fix and/or reason for the delay. This would set the record straight, and ease some of the tension. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše: And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The results speak for themselves. Nothing against the Centos folks you are now being actively worked against by Redhat itself. This is going to slowly choke off community builds of RHEL...and force them to fedora. Due to this decicion byt he upstream is why I'm moving to Ubuntu LTS for my new servers. It is unfortunate that the abuse by Orcale of the exact procedure you use that prompted Red Hat to take these packaging measures. I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place. If need be, there can always be another repo that will be reserved for fast fixes that are not compatible with RHEL, like package with important fix that is not exactly compatible, but does the job same as upstream package. This would be only for unresolved packages with important fix, and only as long as complete fix is not completed. But this approach has been rejected in the past with the argument that all builds need to be binary compatible with upstream. This begs the question if the centos project still considers itself viable? It's one thing to lag behind because of technical difficulties but another if the upstream provider essentially wants to prevent you from doing what you are doing. In that case the project probably doesn't have much of a future because even if it gets back on track with reasonably timely releases then upstream will probably just react by making it even harder to build a clone. Regards, Dennis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše: On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place. If need be, there can always be another repo that will be reserved for fast fixes that are not compatible with RHEL, like package with important fix that is not exactly compatible, but does the job same as upstream package. This would be only for unresolved packages with important fix, and only as long as complete fix is not completed. But this approach has been rejected in the past with the argument that all builds need to be binary compatible with upstream. This begs the question if the centos project still considers itself viable? It's one thing to lag behind because of technical difficulties but another if the upstream provider essentially wants to prevent you from doing what you are doing. In that case the project probably doesn't have much of a future because even if it gets back on track with reasonably timely releases then upstream will probably just react by making it even harder to build a clone. First off, I do NOT speak for dev team. Next, what I said was if there is a problem with, for example missing src rpm for a security fix, and centos team knows what patch was applied (looking at the source and bug tracker), then I would be fine with alternative package with same patch that would bridge the time until upstream provides that src and it is possible to rebuild exact package. Further, what is exactly difference between going to totally new distro and having not-100% compatible distro? Are small and rare differences enough to warrant switch of entire distro? I do not think so. And what is with all that I will switch to Ubuntu, I am switching to Ubuntu and all of you better do the same? Why is there need for sensationalism? If you want to go, then go. There is no need to alarm other users with doom prophecies. With CR repo (created only month or two ago) there is viable way to receive important updates. If things complicate more on security front, CR can become enabled by default or update repo for current minor version will be populated with appropriate security fixes (my view, can not say for devs). I would sincerely like to see number of security updates that are not in CR, and number released to CR repo, so we can deal with facts rather then I haven't seen any updates for a while and I am convinced that every distro *must* have large number of security updates mentality. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Monday, October 31, 2011 12:11 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše: On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place. If need be, there can always be another repo that will be reserved for fast fixes that are not compatible with RHEL, like package with important fix that is not exactly compatible, but does the job same as upstream package. This would be only for unresolved packages with important fix, and only as long as complete fix is not completed. But this approach has been rejected in the past with the argument that all builds need to be binary compatible with upstream. This begs the question if the centos project still considers itself viable? It's one thing to lag behind because of technical difficulties but another if the upstream provider essentially wants to prevent you from doing what you are doing. In that case the project probably doesn't have much of a future because even if it gets back on track with reasonably timely releases then upstream will probably just react by making it even harder to build a clone. First off, I do NOT speak for dev team. Next, what I said was if there is a problem with, for example missing src rpm for a security fix, and centos team knows what patch was applied (looking at the source and bug tracker), then I would be fine with alternative package with same patch that would bridge the time until upstream provides that src and it is possible to rebuild exact package. It is not just what patches were applied. It is also what version of the toolchains and libraries were used in building the package. That is where the main problem is base on what the devs say besides the Redhat problem of packages that should not be distributed to others if you want to keep your RHN access... Further, what is exactly difference between going to totally new distro and having not-100% compatible distro? Are small and rare differences enough to warrant switch of entire distro? I do not think so. The Centos team wants to do 100% binary compatibility. Then any problem is upstream's fault. They are not like Oracle who can afford to leech off Redhat and hire their own engineers to do some tinkering on the side too. And what is with all that I will switch to Ubuntu, I am switching to Ubuntu and all of you better do the same? Why is there need for sensationalism? If you want to go, then go. There is no need to alarm other users with doom prophecies. With CR repo (created only month or two ago) there is viable way to receive important updates. +1 If things complicate more on security front, CR can become enabled by default or update repo for current minor version will be populated with appropriate security fixes (my view, can not say for devs). I would sincerely like to see number of security updates that are not in CR, and number released to CR repo, so we can deal with facts rather then I haven't seen any updates for a while and I am convinced that every distro *must* have large number of security updates mentality. Every distro DOES have a large number of security updates. The real biggie is how many of them are remote root exploits and for those who provide shell access, how many of those are local root/privilege exploits. That's a HEALTHY mentality if you have Internet facing boxes or you have secrets/confidential stuff that you want to keep from other departments/colleagues. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 04:31 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Craig Whitecraigwh...@azapple.com wrote: /me is puzzled. You spelt it correctly. Maybe not so keen on learning the intricacies of Debian and the 'Debian way'. Linux is still Linux and while there is some learning curve, it does tend to broaden one's knowledge base. I gave up on learning everything there is to know a long time ago and try to be more selective now. Learning a different way to accomplish the same thing just isn't that appealing. Especially when there are whole large books of obscure details involved, and all of that stuff that only anaconda and whatever equivalent debian/ubuntu use really understands but you have to deal with afterwards... Yeah, never got my head around preseed and its DEFICIENCIES. Like no lvm over mdraid support. Although that might have been solved now in debian-installer. Oh, and they only recently got multi-arch support i think or are they still working on it? Speaking of Ubuntu, yeah, Ubuntu has nice big repositories but not all the packages are Canonical supported and so you can get stuff that are raw deals. Yup, real good reasons to move to Ubuntu LTS ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 08:38 PM, William Warren wrote: Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term support like Centos. What...Ubuntu LTS? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
