Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: It will be released when it is released, if you don't like it then leave. Before I leave this list let me take you back about 7 years to the Whitebox mailinglist. You may not remember that Whitebox had a list of issues of its own, no timely updates, no community effort, lack of good communication. It was mostly a one-man-effort. And the people on that list who were not pleased, included Johnny and Karanbir. And it's striking (and ironic) how similar the discussions went 7 years ago. Johnny said: [WBEL-users] WBEL Vs Centos ? :-S http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2004-December/004761.html If timely updates are not a key factor for you, then WBEL is a great distro. If timely updates are the most important thing you consider about the distro you want, then WBEL might not be a fit for you. That is all I have ever said ... and I have never said it meanly. or: [WBEL-users] WBEL Vs Centos ? :-S http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2004-December/004740.html I just think people should not have the expectation the WBEL is community operated, it is not. It's NOT like debian or gentoo where others can get involved. I know, I tried really hard to do so many times. Karanbir said: [WBEL-users] WBEL ...dead? http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2004-December/004684.html Be a lil difficult to sell that to the IT Manager / CTO : Hang tight dude, its comming. Anytime now. or: [WBEL-users] WBEL ...dead? http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2004-December/004709.html Why ? the other RHEL recompiles dont have this 'its coming, hang on' attitude do they ? If there is a security issue out there, you can put in a fairly good idea as to when its possible to deploy with them. Whats the scene with WBEL ? The only difference I see is that back then Whitebox had only a fraction of users, and even less using it for critical mission, while nowadays people rely even more on timely security updates and releases coming from CentOS. And people expect to help and contribute to the process to make that happen. Which, contrary to what is stated now, was an essential part in the start and growth of the CentOS project. Anyay, goodbye and thanks for all the fish ! -- -- 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
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
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 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 ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Drive recovery?
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: On 5/10/2011 2:00 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: I will byte and actually say it: Use Backups for important data you can not afford to lose. rsync or similar tool can be used via cron to make sure important files are saved. And this is normally done, except I was in the middle of working on something when I needed to reboot for non-related reasons. So for the most part I have a backup, but it's about 24 hours behind where I was. That's 24 hours I don't necessarily want to lose. If you finished your dd_rescue/ddrescue copy, you may want to look into the testdisk utility to see if somehow the partition-table was not tampered with. testdisk can provide you with different layouts based on filesystem patterns. And it also saves the original layout so you can restore that as well. Also beware that a complete image includes the partition table, and loop-back mounting by default expects the filesystem image. So you may have to provide also an offset= option to tell mount where to look for the actual filesystem on the image ! If the files on the disk are a common format and the filesystem for some reason is nuked, photorec might help recover data from the disk. But beware, it may be very time-consuming to restore whatever photorec thinks it can identify. For simple digital camera media this works much better than a full disk with eg. operating system. Before trying an fsck on a backup copy, first try an fsck -n and see if the output is only minimal or not. Possibly try with different superblocks as well. You don't want to have to make another copy just because the filesystem is so broken, it can never be restored using fsck. Good luck, and provide feedback, we might learn a trick or two :) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How to copy a system?
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/5/2011 4:22 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: and it would automatically create a bootable image with your system's layout and the backuppc software/configuration, and even the necessary commands to automatically recover your system when doing: I don't really want a separate copy of an 'image' built. I want something to do the grunge work of partitioning and creating the necessary filesystems, then pull the tar image from the backuppc server with an appropriate ssh command. The rescue image is a boot image doing the grunge work of partitioning and creating the necessary filesystems and pulling the tar image from your server using the appropriate ssh command. (Or whatever you tell it to do in your specific case) You need to boot something if you are in a disaster. And this 'something' needs to know about your network configuration, your system's layout and needs the necessary tools to restore the backup. That's the bootable rescue image I was referring to. It usually is between 25MB and 50MB depending on the size of the backup client. The rescue image can be a kernel/ramdisk, or an ISO image, or a bootable USB media, or a bootable OBDR tape, or a PXE instance (if you set everything up to update your PXE server). rear recover on the rescue prompt. That's how it is done with Bacula, TSM, and others. You could probably do something very similar by generating the tar image(s) ahead of time from the backuppc server and storing them in your recovery setup. And that would be useful for archiving, offsite, or cloning purposes, but the main thing I want is the ability to boot something that can mindlessly reconstruct a machine from last night's backuppc run straight out of that compressed/pooled storage. That's already possible. ReaR can also handle the backup, on the same boot media if size is sufficient (so either OBDR tape, USB media or PXE/network), for cloning or one-shot migrations this use-case is indeed important too. If you need more help, feel free to join the ReaR mailinglist on sourceforge and ask your questions :) Would a backuppc adapter be feasible? Definitely, join the list and we can help you implement it. OK, I'm interested... It's probably just a matter of generating whatever description of the underlying storage it needs and plugging in an ssh command to get the data at the right point. Something like that, yes. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How to copy a system?
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/5/2011 11:11 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: I do dd imaging quite frequently, and as long as everything is LBA48 capable and setup, [snippage] using dd booted from rescue or live media of the OS that's installed... Clonezilla-live is a handy, faster way to do this. I've recast my original message slightly, as you've missed a critical point: I use the cloning tool from the rescue or live media of the OS that's installed. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is that LVM, RAID, and some other things behave differently depending upon the kernel, lvm tools, etc, that's running the clone. I generally try to avoid layers that are likely to have breakage between different versions. Backwards compatibility is a good thing, as is the ability to move disks around among different hosts. That said, Clonezilla doesn't deal with software raid in the disk image mode - even raid1 where it should be simple. You can do single partitions at a time though, and then it is agnostic about the underlying layers but you have to deal with making it bootable yourself. I can recommend ReaR (Relax and Recover) for migrations and cloning systems. I have been working wit the Relax and Recover project for the past few months together with a colleague and it now covers a lot of situations: - HWRAID (SmartArray), SWRAID, DRBD, partitions, encrypted partitions, LVM - It supports bootable tapes (OBDR), ISO images and USB media - It supports backup software for restoring (like Bacula, TSM, rsync and others) - And it can also take care of backups (using rsync, tar) using different solutions (NFS, USB, Samba, ...) - It's modular, so with little effort you can implement your own workflow or use-case However I would stress to test a complete disaster recover scenario for your systems (different technologies) in order to understand if everything is supported. You don't want to realize a problem in disaster-mode :) But for the use-cases we have, the current trunk is very usable and flexible to support restoring on different hardware. Even with different controllers/disks etc... During recovery you can still adapt the layout and make changes to your wishes before restoring. We are preparing a new stable minor release (without the new layout code enabled by default), but after that release there should be a new major release covering everything I mentioned by default. If you need more help, feel free to join the ReaR mailinglist on sourceforge and ask your questions :) http://rear.sourceforge.net/ And if you happen to go to LinuxTag, we're having two discussion sessions for developers and users on Wednesday and Thursday. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How to copy a system?
On Thu, 5 May 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/5/2011 3:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: I can recommend ReaR (Relax and Recover) for migrations and cloning systems. I have been working wit the Relax and Recover project for the past few months together with a colleague and it now covers a lot of situations: - HWRAID (SmartArray), SWRAID, DRBD, partitions, encrypted partitions, LVM - It supports bootable tapes (OBDR), ISO images and USB media - It supports backup software for restoring (like Bacula, TSM, rsync and others) - And it can also take care of backups (using rsync, tar) using different solutions (NFS, USB, Samba, ...) - It's modular, so with little effort you can implement your own workflow or use-case What I've really always wanted in this respect is something that would work with backuppc such that you could run something on the source to generate descriptions of the partitions and filesystems (sort of clonezilla-like) in files that would be included in backups, and have a bootable restore OS that would know how to get this info from the backuppc server (could be an http request), build the matching filesystems, then run the ssh command to generate a tar image and extract into the right place. Backuppc already does a great job of managing file-level backups but it is somewhat cumbersome to re-install by hand on bare metal and it doesn't automatically keep a description of the layout. Well, I've become very fond of rbme as of lately, but since ReaR supports rsync out of the box, you don't need a separate backup method for it. But if backuppc has a client, or a configuration, it's very easy to make ReaR aware of it. And then to only configuration you would need to do is: BACKUP=BACKUPPC and it would automatically create a bootable image with your system's layout and the backuppc software/configuration, and even the necessary commands to automatically recover your system when doing: rear recover on the rescue prompt. That's how it is done with Bacula, TSM, and others. However I would stress to test a complete disaster recover scenario for your systems (different technologies) in order to understand if everything is supported. You don't want to realize a problem in disaster-mode :) I already trust backuppc on the 'save a copy' side. I'd rather not replace that part. Does backuppc take care of restoring HWRAID, SWRAID, DRBD, LVM, paritions, filesystems ? If so, then ReaR may not be for you, because ReaR takes care of those items. If you need more help, feel free to join the ReaR mailinglist on sourceforge and ask your questions :) Would a backuppc adapter be feasible? Definitely, join the list and we can help you implement it. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] unrar rpm package
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: Sven Aluoor wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Scott Robbinsscot...@nyc.rr.com wrote: As was mentioned, rpmforge has it. For what it's worth, p7zip does the same thing and somewhat more quickly at least in my very rough benchmarks, e.g. time rar e something.rar vs 7z e something rar. Did I understand right? 7z x can unrar multipart *.rar archives faster than unrar nonfree? How is the CLI syntax? I doubt that, given it seems to be the same code: The decompression engine for RAR archives was developed using source code of unRAR program. To the contrary, I would even argue that if you base your implementation on someone else's sourcecode, your implementation is at least as good, but potentially better than the original. Because when rewriting you have to understand the original, so re-implementing provides you with the opportunity to improve. And since you have to verify it works exactly the same, there's a good chance both performance and correctness are guaranteed. The original author may not have a reference to compete against. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] changing column widths in top?
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Simon Matter wrote: Htop looks interesting and I might try it on one of our other servers but on this one I only see the first 60 CPUs. I strongly recommend http://nmon.sourceforge.net/pmwiki.php for such things. I have put my current src rpm here http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/nmon/ Hi Simon, Thanks for posting that SRPM. It seems the nmon version in RPMforge lost track of nmon development. They do not appear to report new releases on freshmeat :-/ I have updated the release in RPMforge based on your SRPM. Thanks again, -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 04/11/2011 05:07 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 4/11/2011 4:02 PM, Ned Slider wrote: On 11/04/11 20:16, Digimer wrote: /putting on asbestos pants. each release is more complex than the last. The web of dependency grows, so the reverse-engineering takes longer and longer. This is just complete nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of the processes involved in rebuilding RHEL. CentOS doesn't reverse-engineer anything, they simply rebuild the upstream sources. It's not rocket science. It's not simple... They don't ship until they reproduce something that they consider 'binary compatible' to the upstream binaries, which depends on a build environment containing some things that don't match the sources. Some of this is documented for the similar SL build but they aren't as picky about library linkage versions (which may not matter functionally anyway). It's unfair to Scientific Linux to imply that Scientific Linux does not care about compatibility. The issues reported on this list by Johnny to discredit SL were found in the 5.6 alpha release, already fixed by SL and improperly used to discredit SL. Johnny found those packages when comparing his own build-issues against Scientific's Linux release, while the Scientific Linux project has no such means to do the same because CentOS does not provide public alpha and beta releases. It's one thing to find an issue in a competing product, but it's another to bring it up on this mailinglist to discredit a competing product (just because it is truly open and has a public alpha release). CentOS obviously looks at how Scientific Linux is fixing issues, but keeping their own fixes secret. PS The notion that Scientific Linux does not care about compatbility is a false claim and it needs to stop. I did not do anything to discredit anyone and I take exception to that term. I published an example of WHY CentOS does not release anything until we check it via QA. Once something is released, it can not come back. Johnny, you are right. I have to apologize for those remarks, they were out of line. Still the notion exists (and has been repeated) that Scientific Linux does not care about binary compatibility. Even if this was not what you intended. What I said was what CentOS does if we have a problem (look at other distros to see if they have the same problem). But you have to agree that Scientific Linux does not have that (reverse) privilege. And I have known that all of YOUR concern about the process has always been so you can try to steal our users Dag. If you want to steal our users for your rebuild then you can do that. There is no such rebuild at this time. That twitter message was started with 'Wouldn't it be nice...', but I ran out of 140 characters to make a statement :) I was surprised by the reaction though, although I won't be able to pull that off by myself, hopefully I can add my support to such a project. Even when being part of the team I have stated that the best thing that could happen to CentOS is more competition, and I still stand by that. I know you have been telling people to roll their own too. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Dag's RHEL Rebuild Project.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Plus, I think it was the timing of the post regarding DAGs RHEL like project. There is no DAG RHEL like project. It's a tweet. If I would ever start a DAG RHEL like project, I wouldn't announce it over twitter :-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Dag's RHEL Rebuild Project.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Keith Keller wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:59:56PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Erm, the dev(s) *suggested* using an alternative distribution. The developers never suggested using this list to raise funds for any alternative distributions. Neither am I. Someone is reading into something that isn't there. I do retain the rights to start my own RHEL rebuild project if I feel I want to though :-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: Also, if you think that just having something out there that people can randomly drive-by and fix is going to work, you must be either really clueless or just new to open source. In Open Source people scratch personal itches. That itch may as well be that CentOS 5.6 is being blocked by a few issues, holding back also a set of security updates. Do you really think nobody wants to become the hero of the day by fixing those blocking issues, speeding up a release ? But your prime example of people not interesting to contribute, is that there was low feedback of your testing framework proposal (of which no information is in the Wiki). Well, ever thought that this particular item was not itching anyone ? Because maybe the bigger picture is missing ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/11/2011 10:27 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: If it were me, wiser you are to listen to frogs and crickets. Dag is saying I want to help but your system is closed. Just to be clear, Dag isnt saying that at all. What he is saying is that 'I dont want to help by actually doing anything, but I am sure other people do' and his reason for that is that he's done a lot for CentOS in the past. I don't doubt he has, but others have done more and continue to do more. Eeerrm, that's not been what I have been saying. Nice to know where you are coming from. I also don't see what the size of my (past) contributions to CentOS has to do with this whole discussion. I would much rather discuss why the QA process needs to be closed, why you think opening up the process will not help fix issues faster (while obviously that's the whole point of Open Source) and what the analysis is of the CentOS 5.6 release taking 3 months to complete. It's obvious that most of the people arguing in this thread would like more timely releases, especially because those releases take longer and longer. At the moment four CentOS developers (Karanbir, Johnny, Tru and Russ) are arguing that more transparency in the build process and QA process is not going to help speed up the process and have clearly articulated that they do not plan to make the process more transparent, and that anyone willing to learn, what the project already knows, are going to have to start from scratch. After Johnny and Tru's disappointing messages, I twittered yesterday as my hope for a true CentOS community is fading. I rather spend my energy on something that is truly Open Source, transparent and honest. I guess that's what Johnny has been saying all along. There is no wish to change how the project is taking care of things. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, R P Herrold wrote: On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Dag Wieers wrote: I also don't see what the size of my (past) contributions to CentOS has to do with this whole discussion. I would much rather discuss why the QA process needs to be closed, why you think opening up the process will not help fix issues faster (while obviously that's the whole point of Open Source) and what the analysis is of the CentOS 5.6 release taking 3 months to complete. CentOS at its core is NOT a development project; it is a way to rebuild source content, and distribute trustable binary content in a fashion that replicates a third party's binary API, that is suitable for enterprise grade use. It is a misnomer to call MOST of what is issued as binaries as 'developed' -- rather they are simply BUILT. Nowhere did I mention 'developed'. Why are you replying to something I DID NOT say ? But to reply to something you DID say. Why would only development projects benefit from an Open Source attitude ? I don't understand why that makes any difference. Groklaw is not a development project either, neither is Wikipedia, but they do benefit from an open and transparent process, and contributions from a community. Yes, even randomly drive-by (sic) contributions. It's obvious that most of the people arguing in this thread would like more timely releases, especially because those releases take longer and longer. These are conflicting goals -- faster, more like upstream, more side product coverage, status and progress bars to look at. But at the end of the day, adding more cruft, bells and whistles, makes for more places for rot, more distraction to 'fix' the widget that is not performing either as one intends or at all, and will net SLOW a release because the total quantum of work by trusted parties needs to be performed has grown if such are adopted You say that, but there's not been an analysis of what took 3 months. To me it seems quite obvious that finding and fixing build problems, doing QA, looking for trademarks, are all tasks that can be distributed quite easily. If the process is open and transparent, and if clearly communicated and managed. I fully understand that this may not be what interests the current developers, but that shouldn't be an excuse for not doing what's best for the project and its users. At the moment four CentOS developers (Karanbir, Johnny, Tru and Russ) are arguing that more transparency in the build process and QA process is not going to help speed up the process and have clearly articulated that they do not plan to make the process more transparent, and that anyone willing to learn, what the project already knows, are going to have to start from scratch. I scarcely think my outline earlier today, taken with all the content I've published over the years back to cAos days are 'starting from scratch' I've helped three or four folks privately with private rebuild efforts of the 6 sources since November. There was a post earlier this afternoon to the effect that my encouragement on these lists helped another person 'become a builder'. You overstate your case in seeking to tar me with your brush How's helping people privately making a difference to more transparency with the CentOS build and QA process ? I sympathize with what you do in private, but I don't see how it helps with the case at hand. So that it is clear, my objection to 'open QA' has ALWAYS been that careless users will treat QA interim content as production ready, and then seek support in general channels to repair what they improvidently broke. CentOS does not need reputational damage of that sort. Ever. You didn't consider reputational damage when a release is 3 months, or 6 months late ? There are technical solutions that would minimize the risk to careless users, while still allowing for an open QA. So you basically confirm my statement above. Thanks for that. CentOS ships production ready enterprise binaries, to the extent of its capabilities, and has down a darn fine job over the with the existing system. There is no compelling reason to tamper with a system that works that I have seen so far. Despite lacking security updates for 3 months. Did you realize that if it takes 3 months to create a minor release, you are vulnerable 50% of the time ? RHEL 5.7 is likely scheduled for July. If a person 'NEEDS' binaries faster, they need someone to provide SLA's to them. That usually implies contracts and an exchange of value for the SLA promise. Contracts are not within the scope of CentOS -- why would the project compete with the upstream? CentOS can not be that entity There's a difference between 1 month and 3 months. But hey, you once again make my point that you don't see more timely releases as a priority. That is perfectly fine. Let's make sure everyone understands that 3 months (or 6 months) are expected and normal for CentOS. My
Re: [CentOS] virtmanager and selinux -- solved
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Negative wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Negative negativebinom...@gmail.comwrote: I built a new VM under KVM today and I've been getting a slew of message that selinux is blocking virtmanager from reading the new image. This doesn't seem to be doing any harm, but I wanted to check whether I should simply run chcon on the image (if I can). Virtmanager show up as usr_t, as do my other vm images, but the new one is svirt_image_t. The selinux error says it denied a read access to virtmanager but that it is not expected that the access is required. I tried running restorecon as root, as suggested by the selinux error, but I'm getting a permission-denied error there. (It tries to set the context to usr_t) My bad. I had to shut down the vm and quit virtmanager before I could run chcon. It's ok now. Thanks for answering your own question. It's actually better than not asking the question ;-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: On 4/11/2011 10:55 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: The main support *I* need is timely updates and releases. This is the key indicator that says you want RHEL not CentOS. That's only true if you think the CentOS team is incapable of matching some definition of 'timely'. Proved to be so, with great pain for some. To take a relativistic approach, entities (people or corporations) who are uncomfortable with CentOS's notion of timely will be less so with RH's notion of timely, since RHEL defines the product for which we're waiting. RH is the Time(0) of the process. Speed costs money, time costs money and/or patience. You must either shell out the money for RHEL, or you must shell out time for CentOS. Considering you follow the it's released when it's ready mantra, what are you comfortable with ? A one month delay between upstream and CentOS ? Two months ? Three months (CentOS 5.6) ? Four months ? Five months ? Six months (CentOS 6.0) ? When it's ready ? Regarding CentOS 5.6, all users using it should not have a problem if the security updates are 3 months behind ? Maybe in 12 months Karanbir has a kid, Johnny disappears again. Would four months be acceptable ? Maybe five months ? No no, it's released when it's ready. Even if it takes 6 months and the next release is out before CentOS is ready ? 3 months is halfway through the release, so you're vulnerable to security problems 50% of the time. If you graph the releases since 2005, you can see it's becoming longer and longer. It never took 3 months before. A new base release never took 5 months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS I have been ringing the alarm-bell 2 years ago (CentOS 4.8) and nothing has changed. But hey, don't let me spoil your dinner, there is no problem. It's free, so questioning things is out of order. http://dag.wieers.com/blog/centos-48-finally-there The comments I got both came from the CentOS team, so you know where you stand if you provide a critical voice. I no longer expect any change. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:19:22PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: Considering you follow the it's released when it's ready mantra, what [ ... ] I no longer expect any change. Then why are you always coming back here to voice your concerns if you don't expect any change? Convince me otherwise. These concerns are not just my concerns, I have had companies calling me for more information or advice because these questions go unanswered. But few people dare to raise their voice on this list. There have been interviews by CentOS developers on popular websites in the past promising improvements to how the project is organized, but releases take longer and development/QA stays closed. Why is that ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Digimer wrote: On 04/11/2011 03:10 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:19:22PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: Considering you follow the it's released when it's ready mantra, what [ ... ] I no longer expect any change. Then why are you always coming back here to voice your concerns if you don't expect any change? Convince me otherwise. These concerns are not just my concerns, I have had companies calling me for more information or advice because these questions go unanswered. But few people dare to raise their voice on this list. There have been interviews by CentOS developers on popular websites in the past promising improvements to how the project is organized, but releases take longer and development/QA stays closed. Why is that ? /putting on asbestos pants. each release is more complex than the last. The web of dependency grows, so the reverse-engineering takes longer and longer. Not true for eg. CentOS 4.8 and CentOS 5.6, the complexity of those two or no more different than CentOS 4.7 or CentOS 5.5. Besides that, if you open up the QA and problems, there are more people that can jump in and help fix one issue. I have compared it to the development of the Linux kernel, either you try to do everything by 3 people, or you open it up and let the community provide you with issues and provide pull requests. So that those 3 people simply have to merge those pull requests. It's a lot less work by the core, and it scales better because all those people waiting for the new release to be ready can actively participate and _make_ that release faster. I would basicly make the whole discussion void, because anyone complaining could actively help the release go forward. Now we both know exactly what the issue was, we can guess or have to accept vague information. Perhaps the tact to take is to apply pressure to the upstream provider to release the build details? I am sure that many folks who start with CentOS, grow to be large and move to RH proper. So there is, I would venture, an argument to be made that RH providing this info to CentOS and helping CentOS thrive would be beneficial for their business. Well, that could be useful too, but why sit and wait for something you cannot control to happen. Or take a decision that the project can implement today. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: 4) back to your genuine inquiry how can I help it be ready faster? Make your own experiment (i.e rebuild your own clone) and document/report back what you find out as the proper order of rebuild of the upstream SRPMS ? [... anything usefull for your CentOS community ...] Yes, let's all do the same thing, and stumble over the same problems, while they may already have fixed in the closed QA builds. Sounds like one crazy plan ! -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 09:48:18PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: 4) back to your genuine inquiry how can I help it be ready faster? Make your own experiment (i.e rebuild your own clone) and document/report back what you find out as the proper order of rebuild of the upstream SRPMS ? [... anything usefull for your CentOS community ...] Yes, let's all do the same thing, and stumble over the same problems, while they may already have fixed in the closed QA builds. Sounds like one crazy plan ! right: you are locked inside a maze, there is one exit somewhere. Everyone start from the same place, eveyone benefit from the person who find the exit. We don't have the solution at the moment, You get the QA builds once we find the exit. If you finish before us let us know how you did it. No, you have 2500 mazes, and you have to finish each of them before you can start the next one. In the meantime, other people (including the CentOS people) are getting lost in that same (but copied) maze, so you cannot help each other find the exit, until you do. Let's waste time together fixing something that someone may already have fixed, who wouldn't be excited about that ! -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:00:57PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: right: you are locked inside a maze, there is one exit somewhere. Everyone start from the same place, eveyone benefit from the person who find the exit. We don't have the solution at the moment, You get the QA builds once we find the exit. If you finish before us let us know how you did it. No, you have 2500 mazes, and you have to finish each of them before you can start the next one. In the meantime, other people (including the CentOS people) are getting lost in that same (but copied) maze, so you cannot help each other find the exit, until you do. My maze is the build order (ie dependancy order of the SRPMS), What are yours? how do you get to that number of mazes? The build order is not what took 86 days, was it ? Feel free to coordinate, we will all profit from your coordination skills. We don't need the coordination anymore, you have the secret now for CentOS 5.6 (and the previous builds) I am certain that if more people understood the basic problems with building CentOS, more people would be skilled to help in the next iteration. Now every release that is closed, is a lost opportunity to attract more people. Let's waste time together fixing something that someone may already have fixed, who wouldn't be excited about that ! Is this kind of useless discussion better? If it would help to get more people the skills to help with the release, absolutely ! No community project thrives by keeping potential contributors ignorant. It's only useless if there's no change. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:20:59PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: ... My maze is the build order (ie dependancy order of the SRPMS), What are yours? how do you get to that number of mazes? The build order is not what took 86 days, was it ? it's too easy to answer my question by yet another stab. It's not a stab. Although if you take everything personal, you might think it is. You implied that only the build order is what makes it hard. I doubt that build order is what took 86 days. But I don't know what exactly took 86 days, because the build process and the problems are closed. So this discussion may seem to you as trolling, but I cannot be more specific, can I ? Transparancy would actually make this discussion worthwhile, maybe even exciting, and solutions possible. So where are these thousands of mazes? Well, every package that needs to be rebuild is a maze. If you require everyone to rebuild the same package and potentially troubleshoot that package, you are duplicating A LOT OF work, and you may be introducing differences in builds (due to build order) that make problems unique to a specific build. So not only would that be unworkable, it would be deliberatly harder to release sooner. All when CentOS is already doing some of that work, behind doors. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Tru Huynh wrote: I only see wasted time talking, no actions. I will be happy to be proven wrong. We are more alike than it seems at first. I don't see actions either, I only see the output of actions because the process is deliberately closed. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 4/11/2011 4:04 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I must be missing something here. If it had been someone I didn't know, that's one thing, but Dag's been contributing to Linux as a whole for a lotta years, and his site is a major repository. Heh, I suppose we could have approximately the same conversion about getting all the stuff in various 3rd party rpm repositories coordinated so they never cause conflicts during updates. Or maybe we have... We have :-) When the Fedora project started there was a big discussion. There was no interest in doing RHEL packages together with RPMForge back then, the Fedora project then saw this additional task a risk to their new Fedora Extras repository. 4 years after that they did start EPEL, but too much conflicts for us to even attempt to fix any issues. And here we are :-/ -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 4/11/2011 4:02 PM, Ned Slider wrote: On 11/04/11 20:16, Digimer wrote: /putting on asbestos pants. each release is more complex than the last. The web of dependency grows, so the reverse-engineering takes longer and longer. This is just complete nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of the processes involved in rebuilding RHEL. CentOS doesn't reverse-engineer anything, they simply rebuild the upstream sources. It's not rocket science. It's not simple... They don't ship until they reproduce something that they consider 'binary compatible' to the upstream binaries, which depends on a build environment containing some things that don't match the sources. Some of this is documented for the similar SL build but they aren't as picky about library linkage versions (which may not matter functionally anyway). Les, It's unfair to Scientific Linux to imply that Scientific Linux does not care about compatibility. The issues reported on this list by Johnny to discredit SL were found in the 5.6 alpha release, already fixed by SL and improperly used to discredit SL. Johnny found those packages when comparing his own build-issues against Scientific's Linux release, while the Scientific Linux project has no such means to do the same because CentOS does not provide public alpha and beta releases. It's one thing to find an issue in a competing product, but it's another to bring it up on this mailinglist to discredit a competing product (just because it is truly open and has a public alpha release). CentOS obviously looks at how Scientific Linux is fixing issues, but keeping their own fixes secret. PS The notion that Scientific Linux does not care about compatbility is a false claim and it needs to stop. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, John R. Dennison wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 05:27:13PM -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: If it were me, wiser you are to listen to frogs and crickets. Dag is saying I want to help but your system is closed. I believe him more than anybody in CentOS. Except for the whole I resign issue with Dag and the project. He's stirring up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble. Yes, and CentOS does not have issues ! It's all Dag that's making it up. Without Dag releases would be more timely :) Pigs can fly ! -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Keith Keller wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 12:08:29AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, John R. Dennison wrote: Except for the whole I resign issue with Dag and the project. He's stirring up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble. Yes, and CentOS does not have issues ! It's all Dag that's making it up. These are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for CentOS to have problems and for you to stir up trouble at the same time. Whether you mean it to or not, your posts come off as bitter sniping, and not as constructive criticisms of CentOS. You can read into my statements what you like, but do also read the facts I bring up and the deafening silence from the project about some real issues. None of these are new by the way. BTW tell me how one can be constructive if: - the project does not plan to discuss why it took 84 days for CentOS 5.6 and 5 months for CentOS 6.0 - the project has QA closed to a limited group of people and the development process closed - the project is not interested to allow more people to collaborate - no other team members actually dare to speak up other than the three people that have sign-access This is not a community project. A community shares information for the benefit of everyone. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How can a company help, officially?
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: On 4/11/2011 5:32 PM, Ned Slider wrote: This is just complete nonsense. You clearly have no understanding of the processes involved in rebuilding RHEL. CentOS doesn't reverse-engineer anything, they simply rebuild the upstream sources. It's not rocket science. It's not simple... Which part isn't simple? The part where you guess why your build doesn't match the upstream binary. If it was simple, why would it take 86 days or 6 months ? I would like to have an answer to that. Either it is hard, and more people could help fix issues. Or it is simple and the CentOS developers have been slacking ? Anyone from the QA team interested to share some information on what happened during QA ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, fred smith wrote: On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:01:34PM +0200, Luigi Rosa wrote: Just one thing: THANK YOU ALL!!! Seconded! My update was trouble-free. updated something in the neighborhood of 180 packages. Well done indeed, none of my CentOS systems show any problems either. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, R P Herrold wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Tom H wrote: This is the kind of answer that CentOS as a project shouldn't allow (KB's recent use-something-else email is another example) because it makes the developers look like rank amateurs. It is _so_ easy to tell others what they should or should not do. Easier still for a bystander to criticize to jeer and mock from the sidelines When people state the project can do better, who did translate the project to Johnny or Karanbir ? Nobody did, except Johnny and Karanbir. Nobody is asking Johnny or Karanbir to work harder, that's the fallacy. But only Johnny and Karanbir can change how this project is organized at the moment and the project is currently organized in such a way that if we want more timely releases and updates, or we want better communication, or we want more transparancy, Johnny and Karanbir will have to work harder. It doesn't have to be like this, but it feels like certain forces want to keep things framed like this in discussions. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/04/2011 11:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all. That's not hard to do - stop reading them then. And once again we are avoiding a proper solution. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/06/2011 07:54 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: How can a company dedicate a few man-hours per week to help CentOS? I mean this in a more official way, rather than just a person dropping by at the -devel list. Thats a very good question, and something more people should be asking : here is a terse reply : adopt a part of the distro, contribute tests and take ownership of driving support for those components forward ( so, wiki content, support in irc channels and support for users on those components in the mailing lists ). Start with a package or two, then move that forward. Start with whats already in the distro. Its easy to fixate on the idea of CentOS being the distro and the distro alone - however, a very large part of what the users see value in is the user base around CentOS - and focused, specialised help with those areas would go a long way in 'helping' CentOS. But there's no problem with all of these things where people can help already. The wiki is working fine, the mailinglist is helping people, I never heard anyone complain about this. None of this is fixing where people want the project to improve. People want to help with where the problems are, which is fixing builds so a release can be more timely. Why are we avoiding this again and again ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
yOn Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: That's not hard to do - stop reading them then. And once again we are avoiding a proper solution. No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the efforts going into the solution. And you do not seem to provide me with the answers. Same old, same old. Communication is issue #1, and you're not helping. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/06/2011 11:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: And you do not seem to provide me with the answers. Same old, same old. Actually, i dont need to provide *you* with anything :) Correct, but if you claim I don't know anything about the issues, the problem and the efforts to solve them (which I contest, btw) it would have been honest to tell me what you think are the issues, the problem and the efforts to solve them. It's not fair to blame my ignorance and keeping me ignorant at the same time. It's avoiding an open discussion. Mind you that for more than 2 years the issues I have brought up, have been largely the same, but they have been ignored and avoided. I can provide you with a list of excuses and future promises which didn't stand the test of time up till now. But i disagree on the same old. Its definitely the same old from you. On the other hand, how many qa tests have you written and which part of the distro are you looking to adopt and help with ? About 35 other people have taken up the task, I dont see you doing anything at all. Apart from the fact I did a lot in the past for CentOS (I hope you are not disclaiming any of that) I don't think I need to be an active contributor to voice my opinion about the need for more transparency, better communication and timely releases. You know very well why I left the project (read my resignation letter again if you will) and as long as the project is not improving on those basic and fundamental problems, it pretty much feels as another disappointment hitting me in the face if I would become involved again. I prefer not to loose any more sleep over CentOS for the time being. That said, there are many options to solve the above, but the discussion has been largely avoided and you attack people for bringing them up with vague claims and belittling eg. my involvement just to ditch the questions. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Ian Murray wrote: On 04/06/2011 09:30 PM, Ian Murray wrote: As previously stated, in-reply-to isn't a mandatory field as far as I can tell, so it is a stretch to call it broken. However, now that someone actually stopped the time-wasting and told me the issue precisely, I was able to rectify it rather than have me second-guess it. Superiority is about keeping people ignorant and point out the ignorance (preferably in public). in-reply-to isn't the only way to retain thread sanity Do you honestly not have anything better to do? For your info before I posted, Markmail seemed to sort it out okay as did the OP who posted. We are all waiting for the first sucker to tell you to stop this thread because if you keep Karanbir busy it will make the CentOS 6.0 release late ! -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How to install wine ?
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/04/11 2:01 AM, Rajan Dahal wrote: I have downloaded wine-1.3.13.tar.bz2 How to install it ? I have no internet connection. so I want to install it manually. thats probably the source tarball for Wine, and will need to be compiled. doesn't it have a README and/or INSTALL file inside the tar ? But, rather than compiling, there are RPM's for wine built for el4,5,6 on rpmforge. Beware that RPMforge contains the stable releases (1.2.2) and the RPMforge testing repository is at 1.3.7, but I am doing a 1.3.17 build right now. Often the latest development release have a better success rate than the stable release, but if you are unsure, download both and test your use-case with both toroughly :) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] How to install wine ?
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/04/11 2:41 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Beware that RPMforge contains the stable releases (1.2.2) and the RPMforge testing repository is at 1.3.7, but I am doing a 1.3.17 build right now. Often the latest development release have a better success rate than the stable release, but if you are unsure, download both and test your use-case with both toroughly :) what are these? http://packages.sw.be/wine/ That is an overview of all packages from all repositories. The filename gives away what repository they are from: .rf. is rpmforge .rfx. is rpmforge-extras .rft. is rpmforge-testing .rfb. is rpmforge-buildtools Kind regards, -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Alain Péan wrote: Le 04/04/2011 20:31, Karanbir Singh a écrit : On 04/04/2011 07:26 PM, David Brian Chait wrote: If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6) Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now... If you have a problem with things - feel free to then ignore my updates. You are one of the few who care to give updates, so thanks for that. Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, David Brian Chait wrote: I have to provide a reliable and scalable infrastructure, and that requires a reliable provider / updates. While I do not need Centos 6 today, this development cycle has certainly raised questions as to whether the development process can be relied upon. The whole when it's ready mantra works well for academic/individual users, but you can't plan business processes based on it. That may have been the whole point of this exercise. Red Hat profits ! -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Hendrik wrote: 2011/4/5 Dag Wieers d...@wieers.com: You are one of the few who care to give updates, so thanks for that. Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all. Now is the time to change that. Maybe CentOS just needs a new leadership? Try to convince UN first, ask questions later ;-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Door not hitting me on my way out
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/01/11 6:54 PM, Digimer wrote: I would not fault someone for moving on, but I would when said person does so in a manner that only leads to unhelpful drama. yeah, seriously. call the WHAHmbulance. I don't see how this is helpful either. But that's the problem, there's no way anyone can help the releases moving forward... Good luck waiting :) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past 133 days delay, an all time record (not counting CentOS 2 :-)). You keep tossing out late. late implies a published deadline and I've yet to see one. I see best effort and will try comments in many places, but never a published deadline. So, why the focus on late? John, The definition of late according to many dictionaries: after the expected or usual time Let me ask you the same question, why the focus on late ? Kind regards, -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: It takes hours to analyze all the packages in a build ... I do not have hours to spend on doing it for SL ... but here is another error that I found in the SL tree when figuring out build issues in the CentOS 5.6 tree: Which is why opening the process would mean more people are doing that work for you. Much like Linus Torvalds is not doing a lot of programming anymore these days. If you don't want to become the Linus of CentOS, that's fine too, but I don't see the point in doing this behind doors all by yourself if sharing and coordination would solve most of the issues. You pick, build and sign what you like from a shared pool of information. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: SL did indeed release a 6.0 before CentOS. For all of the other 25 possible releases, SL released before CentOS on 5 of the 25 times. Right, but as these numbers reveal, since June 2008 Scientific Linux is closing the gap with CentOS (or rather, CentOS is slacking). You can see this when comparing CentOS and RHEL release dates. Since June 2008 CentOS started having longer delays (source: Wikipedia) https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/CentOS Where the average release delay was 25 days before June 2008, the average release delay after June 2008 increased to 51 days, and I am not including the already late CentOS 5.6 and CentOS 6.0 (otherwise it would be 62 days). CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past 133 days delay, an all time record (not counting CentOS 2 :-)). So the trend is a decline in release speed and maybe we should lower our expectations. CentOS users have been spoiled in the past. Kind regards, -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Marko A. Jennings wrote: On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote: their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charges. That's basically all oracle is going with unbreakable Linux. Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursuing Red Hat customers and offering to support their Red Hat installations cheaper than Read Hat does. I know a large international technology company which buys RHEL licenses only for the first year and then switches to Novell for support after that. Does Novell provide their own updates (RHEL rebuilds) or how does this exactly work ? I doubt Novell can redistribute RHEL binaries in this case. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, compdoc wrote: Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursuing Red Hat customers and offering to support their Red Hat installations cheaper than Read Hat does. I know a large international technology company which buys RHEL licenses only for the first year and then switches to Novell for support after that. Does Novell provide their own updates (RHEL rebuilds) or how does this exactly work ? I doubt Novell can redistribute RHEL binaries in this case. RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config files and slightly different locations for some config files. Oh, really ? :-) It's not like one is a drop in replacement for the other, so it doesn't make sense to me that a business would buy RHEL support and then switch to opensuse. Please read the previous posts again carefully and the link that was provided: http://www.novell.com/products/expandedsupport/faq.html Novell apparently provides (own rebuilt) updates to RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5 for the purpose of supporting your setup for up to three years while you are migrating those systems. I guess this is a free service so you can stop paying Red Hat as soon as you plan to migrate to SLES. But they expect you to migrate to SLES in the next three years... So this is not related to OpenSUSE. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] security updates?
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote: Sorin Srbu wrote: V5.6 will be done when it's done, okay? I don't think the OP did ask when 5.6 would be ready. What he/she said, IIRC, was that Karanbir had suggested that 5.6 would be out last week, and he/she was asking if there had been a problem. This seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. Personally, I am very grateful to Karanbir and his accomplices for what I find an excellent OS, and I don't really care when 5.6 or 6 come out, as the present version works perfectly well for me. However, I don't think people who ask reasonable questions politely should be castigated for doing so. It has been suggested that asking such questions makes the release even later. So that's why people frantically condemn such threads, we are all being collectively punished ! (Include mandatory smiley) :-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] virtualization on the desktop a myth, or a reality?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, David Sommerseth wrote: Other than that, SPICE is probably the future [1] on Linux. That should slowly begin to be useful in RHEL5, RHEL6 and Fedora 14, if I'm not much mistaken. Not sure how much is implemented in RHEL5/CentOS5 though. However, for SPICE to work, you need to use KVM. And you need the qemu-kvm part to initialise the SPICE display properly as well. You need qemu-spice for using SPICE, which does not ship with RHEL5 or RHEL6. On top of that, SPICE is only supported by Red Hat for RHEV, not libvirt. That may change in the future, ... but when, nobody knows ;-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] virtualization on the desktop a myth, or a reality?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011, James Hogarth wrote: You need qemu-spice for using SPICE, which does not ship with RHEL5 or RHEL6. On top of that, SPICE is only supported by Red Hat for RHEV, not libvirt. That may change in the future, ... but when, nobody knows ;-) qemu-kvm and libvirt in RHEL6 already supports SPICE... the only thing that isn't included is support for it in virt-manager (that is coming down the road) but you can enable it with virsh edit easily enough following the XML definition at the libvirt fine. I was playing with it last week - very impressive piece of technology. Interesting, could you shed a light on what exact XML is needed ? It used to be qemu-spice though in past Fedora releases, that's why I was expecting the same. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, JD wrote: OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? That might give people an approximate idea. Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to enquire about RHEL 6. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS RHEL4:2005-02-14 CentOS-4: 2005-03-0923 days RHEL5:2007-03-14 CentOS-5: 2007-04-1229 days RHEL6:2010-11-10 CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] [OT] building src rpm on RHEL5 using mock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=680144
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Jason Pyeron wrote: Does anyone have experience using mock on RHEL5 with the RHN? I use mock easily on Centos, I get errors like /bin/sh not found, useradd not found build failed? messages from it on RHEL w/ RHN. Any suggestions on where to start looking. What I do for RPMforge is using an mrepo setup that synchronizes yum repositories from RHN using rhnget. Then point my buildsystem to those repositories. You can do the same with mock. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Any update on 5.6 / 6?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/20/2011 07:30 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have: For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after RHEL6. The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their Build Roots in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM). CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0 Source: wikipedia Granted, RHEL6 is larger than RHEL5 which was larger than RHEL4, still... PS And this time I am not off-by-1 (month) ;-) It is not done, I don't know when it will be done. All the jumping up and down and screaming is not going to get it done any sooner. I am not sure where you got that information, but I wasn't jumping up and down and screaming ;-) On the initial pass through builder for C4, maybe 30 packages needed to be fixed because the links were bad. On the initial pass through builder for c5, maybe 20 packages needed to be fixed. On the initial pass through builder for c6, there are hundreds of packages that need to be analyzed. So you are now saying that you cannot scale out this work to more people to release faster ? This is something that has to be done by Karanbir only ? -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Any update on 5.6 / 6?
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/16/2011 04:31 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: On 15/02/11 17:25, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: Let's see. 7 weeks after a RHEL release, we have: For RHEL6, lets make that 14 weeks. And RHEL5.6 got released 9 weeks after RHEL6. The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their Build Roots in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM). CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0 Source: wikipedia Granted, RHEL6 is larger than RHEL5 which was larger than RHEL4, still... PS And this time I am not off-by-1 (month) ;-) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] Any update on 5.6 / 6?
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Always Learning wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Dag Wieers wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: The FIRST build of a distribution (the .0 of 4.0 or 5.0) takes MUCH longer than the subsequent rebuilds. This is because you have NOTHING to start from except SRPMS. You also do not know the environment that upstream is using to run their Build Roots in. We also know nothing about which packages will and will not build as written (there are many that require us to research and provide hints to the build suystem. Hints are things that need to be added that are not called out in the SRPM). CentOS 4.0 was released 23 days after RHEL4.0 CentOS 5.0 was released 29 days after RHEL5.0 CentOS 6.0 is *not* released 103 days after RHEL6.0 en ? This is not a problem for me. I am contented to wait - en jij? Hi Paul, This was in a direct response to Johnny ;-) No worries, I put the context back so it's clear *why* I replied this. It's not that I am impatient for CentOS 6.0. In fact I switched to RHEL6. Regardless, I do think CentOS 5.6 is much more important than CentOS 6.0. As there is a direct security impact to users. -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] ntfs
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Ron Loftin wrote: On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 23:52 +0530, Ritika Garg wrote: CentOS 5.5 is installed in the system. I installed the package kmod-ntfs-2.1.27-3.el5.elrepo.x86_64.rpm I mounted Seagate external hard disk. I am able to copy contents from the hard disk to the system but not from the system to the hard disk. Yes. If you go to this page on the ElRepo site: http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-ntfs and check the limitations you will see that this is the expected behavior. If you want full write capabilities with NTFS I suggest that you remove kmod-ntfs and instead use the fuse-ntfs-3g package from RPMForge. That relies on DKMS ( which works well enough for me ) and has full read-write capabilities. Just a small correction. Fuse filesystems do no longer need dkms installed since the fuse kernel-module is now part of RHEL5 since RHEL 5.4. So if people still have the dkms module installed and/or use ELRepo's fuse kernel module they can safely remove it :) -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] ntfs
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Niki Kovacs wrote: Robert Heller a écrit : Will FAT support the larger external disks, such as the .5TB and larger? I read the replies to my previous posts, and I get your point, since I didn't know about the various limitations. It's probably due to the fact that we're 100% GNU/Linux here. I haven't booted Windows for work since before the time Windows XP came out (around 2001). The only time I get to work on Windows is usually to retrieve data before moving it to CentOS. As far as external hard disks are concerned, they're all ext3 here. Whenever the odd non-Linux user has to exchange data with Linux here, he or she has to use a Samba share. So I admit my point of view is somewhat biased :o) However one point you make is still valid. There is no alternative to NTFS nowadays if you need so share files between Windows and Linux. It is a shame there are not better Ext3/Ext4 drivers that integrate properly into Windows. Something similar to ntfs-3g must be easier to write for ext3 on Windows (as the ext3 format is well-known). -- -- 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
Re: [CentOS] odd ClamAV error
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, John Doe wrote: From: m.r...@5-cent.us m.r...@5-cent.us Has anyone recently started seeing LibClamAV Warning: Cannot prepare for JIT, because it has already been converted to interpreter ? I can't find anything googling for that. Google tells me: http://osdir.com/ml/clamav-users/2010-10/msg00086.html And ClamAV 0.96.4 was available from RPMforge since yesterday, so if all is well updating your system should fix this (harmless) message. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] DRBD update 8.3.9 (Was: drbd update 8.3.8.1)
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Shad L. Lords wrote: Can we get a refresh of the drbd packages to 8.3.8.1 There was a fix to the resync protocol. 8.3.8 would stall under certain circumstances. If you haven't tried the ELRepo DRBD packages yet, could you please test the one at: http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/i386/RPMS/ http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/x86_64/RPMS/ and provide feedback ? The more people test and provide feedback, the quicker we can move it out of testing, into the elrepo repository. In the meantime DRBD 8.3.9 has been released and you can find EL5 packages in the ELRepo testing repository at: http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/i386/RPMS/ http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/x86_64/RPMS/ where also the DRBD 8.3.8.1 are still hosted. Without sufficient feedback we are not able to promote those packages to stable. Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] update HOWTO page for how to copy ssh pub keys
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Robert P. J. Day wrote: here: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH the recipe for how to copy your id_rsa.pub file to a remote system is given as: Copy the public key (id_rsa.pub) to the server and install it to the authorized_keys list: $ cat id_rsa.pub ~/.ssh/authorized_keys i suspect it would be better if that were rewritten in terms of using ssh-copy-id, just to be simpler and less error-prone. Remember that this was likely written for CentOS 4, which did not have that tool as part of openssh. So we might want to provide an option for both cases ? -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] drbd update 8.3.8.1
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Shad L. Lords wrote: Can we get a refresh of the drbd packages to 8.3.8.1 There was a fix to the resync protocol. 8.3.8 would stall under certain circumstances. If you haven't tried the ELRepo DRBD packages yet, could you please test I investigated also why I didn't know about the newer DRBD 8.3.8.1 release and apparently it was never officially announced. Not on the announce mailinglist, not on freshmeat. So it's hard to keep track of items that are not announced through known channels :-/ I will take this up with upstream. So feel free to report future updates through the ELRepo bug tracker in case it happens again, I prefer one report too many, than no update :-) http://elrepo.org/bugs/ Thanks for your help ! -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] drbd update 8.3.8.1
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Shad L. Lords wrote: Can we get a refresh of the drbd packages to 8.3.8.1 There was a fix to the resync protocol. 8.3.8 would stall under certain circumstances. Hi Shad, If you haven't tried the ELRepo DRBD packages yet, could you please test the one at: http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/i386/RPMS/ http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/x86_64/RPMS/ and provide feedback ? The more people test and provide feedback, the quicker we can move it out of testing, into the elrepo repository. PS Updates can be requested through ELRepo's bugtracker available from: http://elrepo.org/bugs/ Thanks in advance, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS, Firefox, and Java Plugin
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Les Mikesell wrote: On 9/24/2010 2:23 PM, Keith Roberts wrote: Well yes, it does work OK. The point being though it's an old (stable) release of Eclipse, but nothing near the current Eclipse 3.6.0 Helios release. I'm in the middle of moving now, but when the dust settles I will put my 'Installing Eclipse Helios 3.6.0 for PHP developers' on Centos 5.5 on my site. It covers Java, Xdebug, PDT, necessary repos, and starting to use the PDT plugin for debugging local and remote PHP scripts. I might even throw in a few screencasts. But that's another story getting OT now. My take on things is that java and a lot of other things are really intended to work with several versions concurrently available - and perhaps running concurrently, where RPM wants to only have one and even with alternatives can only make one the default. So any time you don't want the defaults, you have some design decisions to make. Still, I'm surprised that Sun and RH didn't make nice and have a publicly available RPM that puts things in RH-style places. As you probably know, Red Hat does have various java flavours and versions that can coexist using RPM available from their RHN Extras/Supplementary channel. I guess licensing is one reason why it is not public, although it does give Red Hat some added value for Enterprises, I am sure :-) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [SOLVED?] PAM_shield locking me out?
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, A. Kirillov wrote: And that's about the only hint on how and where to enable pam_shield. I've tried to add this line to /etc/pam.d/sshd too. Fortunately it didn't crash anything but it didn't work either. Here's the story for those interested. With the default of allow_missing_dns no allow_missing_reverse no pam_shield DOESN'T BLOCK hosts with no or incomplete dns entries, which is a surprise. Should I say a big one? The reason it didn't work for me was that bind wasn't adding reverse maps for my local hosts because of screwed up zone file permissions. On a side note, when testing pam_shield with a recommended retention period of 60 secs you have to run /etc/cron.daily/pam-shield manually to release expired locks. Welcome to the wonderful world of Open Source ! If you want to make a difference here, please talk to the upstream developers, rather than to this list. Now, since I use pam_shield myself I have reported both problems (segfault of su and login when configuring in /etc/pam.d/system-auth, and the above). I haven't tested both, so any feedback or testcase to replicate the problem are welcomed by the upstream developers (does not include me). We also discussed some other improvements: - using AUTHPRIV intead of AUTH for logging - including shield-trigger-iptables - Fixes to Makefile - Including manual pages - Fixes to INSTALL - Both registered bugs Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] miro from rpmforge appears to have dep solving issues
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, John R Pierce wrote: On 08/26/10 3:25 PM, Mark Pryor wrote: It's part of mozilla-devel-1.4.3-0.9.1.legacy.i386.rpm might be in FC9 if not elsewhere. seems a little odd that rpmforge would have a package with dependencies that aren't in either the base distribution or rpmforge. Or maybe the answer is more simple. The libraries once were available in RHEL, but have been replaced by newer/incompatible ones ? -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] PAM_shield locking me out?
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, A. Kirillov wrote: Yesterday I installed pam_shield and followed the testing suggested and thought all was well. today I find that I cannot get to my email account, I can login via ssh okay (uses keys) but su and sudo give segmentation faults. I am guessing due to the pam module causing a problem. As I cannot do remote login as root and sudo and su use pam I appear to have locked myself out. I have not encountered this issue. And I have been using it on 32bit and 64bit machines with RHEL4 and RHEL5. I guess it must be related to a configuration issue somewhere. Not good though. Was this with the 0.9.2 release, or the 0.9.3 release ? Please provide this information to the author, he might help you find the cause and fix it in pam_shield. Thanks for reporting, Update - running 0.9.2 release on both a .386 and a .x86_64 system I think the location of the auth optionalpam_shield.so line within the /etc/pam.d/ config files is important?? I had an error on the 64 bit machine thus it was not running - I have now fixed and after looking at the response from S.Tindall I have moved the line to the location as shown in /etc/pam.d/system-auth-ac: snip authrequired pam_env.so authsufficientpam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass authrequisite pam_succeed_if.so uid = 500 quiet authsufficientpam_krb5.so use_first_pass authoptional pam_shield.so authrequired pam_deny.so snip Lets see if this works. I've tried that too and it was a good suggestion as su now crashes only if you enter a wrong password. I've also tried to rebuild rpmforge srpm with no luck. Could you really make this thing work? I mean did it actually block anything after a series of failed logins? As I said, we use it for various services on all Internet-bound systems. And yes it works fine. Example: /etc/pam.d/sshd -- #%PAM-1.0 auth optional pam_shield.so auth include system-auth accountrequired pam_nologin.so accountinclude system-auth password include system-auth sessionoptional pam_keyinit.so force revoke sessioninclude system-auth sessionrequired pam_loginuid.so -- You don't want to add this to /etc/pam.d/system-auth simply because it makes no sense to enable pam_shield for things like su, screen, reboot, etc... If you understand what pam_shield does (eg. read the documentation), you'd never want to enable it for all PAM services that use system-auth. EVER. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dovecot attack
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 08/23/2010 03:58 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: pam_shield is available from RPMforge and requires a minimum of configuration. Never heard of this one before - just installed and simple to configure. I note that version 0.9.3 was released April 2010 and includes a supposed memory leak fix - maybe time for an update? given the overall lower cost of running pam_shield, it makes for a much better solution than denyhosts or fail2ban ( for many situations ). You just need to be careful that you dont end up DoS'ing yourself, so weigh in some typical scenarios and test in a sandbox environment. You can whitelist known IP addresses (or FQDNs), but indeed there is the possibility that someone else (from your IP address) can DOS you as it is IP-based. Although that risk is limited, you need to understand how it works :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dovecot attack
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Rob Kampen wrote: Dag Wieers wrote: pam_shield is available from RPMforge and requires a minimum of configuration. Never heard of this one before - just installed and simple to configure. I note that version 0.9.3 was released April 2010 and includes a supposed memory leak fix - maybe time for an update? Great, I have made an update. If the package could be improved (regarding the experience you have had installing) let me know. If we can make it easier, we should ! Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] PAM_shield locking me out?
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Rob Kampen wrote: Yesterday I installed pam_shield and followed the testing suggested and thought all was well. today I find that I cannot get to my email account, I can login via ssh okay (uses keys) but su and sudo give segmentation faults. I am guessing due to the pam module causing a problem. As I cannot do remote login as root and sudo and su use pam I appear to have locked myself out. I have not encountered this issue. And I have been using it on 32bit and 64bit machines with RHEL4 and RHEL5. I guess it must be related to a configuration issue somewhere. Not good though. Was this with the 0.9.2 release, or the 0.9.3 release ? Please provide this information to the author, he might help you find the cause and fix it in pam_shield. Thanks for reporting, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] hplip under CentOS-5.5
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Timothy Murphy wrote: Is anyone successfully using hplip under CentOS? When I try to print on my HP Officejet J4580 I always get the error -- Printer Filter foomatic-rip-hplip for printer oj not available: No such file or directory -- What I find puzzling is that I have googled for this, and it appears there has been the same problem with hplip for over a year. I'm using hplip-1.6.7-4.1.el5.4.x86_64 . If you're interested, RPMforge has an updated hplip in testing that supports many more (and newer) devices. It does have an incompatibility with dbus, but works fine for my HP PhotoSmart printer that wouldn't work otherwise. You can find those packages here: http://packages.sw.be/hplip/ -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] hplip under CentOS-5.5
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Scott Robbins wrote: On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 01:19:12AM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote: Is anyone successfully using hplip under CentOS? When I try to print on my HP Officejet J4580 I always get the error -- Printer Filter foomatic-rip-hplip for printer oj not available: No such file or directory -- What I find puzzling is that I have googled for this, and it appears there has been the same problem with hplip for over a year. Wow, that's pretty old. I think rpmforge has newer, but regardless, I wound up installing from source. The hplip page for CentOS is a bit off (dated, I imagine), I have my own page on it here. (I should add that it works quite well for me, version 3.9.8 or so. Haven't checked for updates since then, as this does all I need. http://home.roadrunner.com/~computertaijutsu/hplip.html Hi Scott, Thanks fot hat document. I modified my hplip package based on that document and am building a 3.10.6 update package as we speak. I noticed that --enable-dbus-build is set, but I think it might be better to disable it. Now people get the following error due to dbus incompatiblities: error: Unable to load dbus - Automatic status updates in HPLIP Device Manager will be disabled. I've looked into the problem, but only a dbus update could fix the issue at hand :-/ Everything else works for me without a problem though. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [DRBD-user] Kernel independent DRBD packages for RHEL, CentOS and Scientific Linux
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Ralph Angenendt wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Joseph L. Casale jcas...@activenetwerx.com wrote: This seems like duplication of effort with the CentOS people, since they already package DRBD for CentOS 5.x (and it works very well). No its not, the CentOS packages are no longer maintained... http://dev.centos.org/testing/ tells me something else (and yes, this time they will go into extras). Well, it was confusing. When we decided to spend the effort to add kmod-drbd to ELRepo there were a few reasons: - The lack of updates in the CentOS repository, while a new update is now in testing, a few have been skipped/delayed in the past. - The infrastructure, team and workflow of the ELRepo project all focuses specifically on kernel modules. - The opinion at FOSDEM of team-members that CentOS was going to go back to its core-business, and drop additional RPM packages like in CentOS Extras. So my personal opinion (and I had to convince other team-members) was that we should do this despite the fact that it is a duplication of effort and only if we can provide the same quality as we do with other packages. (Which is exactly why we asked for feedback on this mailinglist !) We didn't do this out of the blue either, this was also discussed on the centos-devel mailinglist (although with less feedback than I had hoped). Now, it shouldn't really matter to users whether this is a duplication of effort or not. Users will now have additional choice, if CentOS delays or skips a release, ELRepo might have it available. Everybody wins. Once again, I didn't want any controversy, we are just looking for CentOS people that are willing to test and provide feedback regarding the ELRepo kmod-drbd packages (preferably on the ELRepo bug-tracker / mailinglist to not cause even more controversy). Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Kernel independent OCFS2 packages for RHEL, Scientific Linux and CentOS
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 19/06/2010 02:32, Dag Wieers wrote: We are not sending every announcement to the CentOS list, that should be apparent from looking at the ELRepo lists (where actual announcements are being posted in more detail). But you are still making repeated announcements about packages here - I dont want to see every repo or development unit out there posting emails here for feedback about every component they built. As I said already, many projects have made a one time announcement, which is fine as long as we don't get too many projects jumping in. If that becomes a proble, we would need to reconsider that as well. Anyway, keep the elrepo posts away from this list, just as every other project is requested to not spam this list with repeated posts. Hi Karanbir, Not sure what was not clear from my previous email, but both mails were in fact one time emails looking for feedback. I also stressed that we don't do this for every package we build, nor are we planning to. If you want to continue this discussion, I invite you to do this on the ELRepo mailinglist. The original email asked for feedback using our own support channels to prevent off-topic discussions on this mailinglist. And this is my last 'spam' in this thread ;-) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Kernel independent OCFS2 packages for RHEL, Scientific Linux and CentOS
Hi, I would like to announce a set of OCFS2 kABI-tracking kernel module packages for RHEL5, Scientific Linux 5 and CentOS-5 and kernels. These packages have been introduced into the ELRepo testing repository (http://elrepo.org/). You can find these packages at: http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/ The ELRepo project is a community project providing various additional kernel modules for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and derivative kernels that aim to be kernel independent. Next to this set of OCFS 1.4.7 kernel modules the project provides dozens of kmod RPM packages and hundreds of kernel modules for a variety of hardware and kernel functionality. In this case we are looking for OCFS2 users willing to test these packages and provide feedback and support in our support channels for future users. We welcome your feedback on our mailinglist and bug-tracker, respectively at: http: //lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo http: //elrepo.org/bugs/main_page.php Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Kernel independent OCFS2 packages for RHEL, Scientific Linux and CentOS
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 18/06/2010 09:12, Dag Wieers wrote: I would like to announce a set of OCFS2 kABI-tracking kernel module packages for RHEL5, Scientific Linux 5 and CentOS-5 and kernels. Can you please stop spamming this list ? A one time announcement here was plenty. Perhaps setup an announcement list for elrepo ? Well, this is hardly spam. We are actively seeking feedback on both the DRBD and OCFS2 packages from users and since it is related to CentOS it makes sense to ask the CentOS list too. It is a coincidence that we are doing that for 2 packages in 3 days. We are not sending every announcement to the CentOS list, that should be apparent from looking at the ELRepo lists (where actual announcements are being posted in more detail). -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Kernel independent DRBD packages for RHEL, CentOS and Scientific Linux
Hi, I would like to announce a set of DRBD kABI-tracking kernel module packages for RHEL5, CentOS-5 and Scientific Linux 5 kernels. These packages have been introduced into the ELRepo testing repository (http://elrepo.org/). You can find these packages at: http://elrepo.org/linux/testing/el5/ The ELRepo project is a community project providing various additional kernel modules for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and derivative kernels that aim to be kernel independent. Next to this set of DRBD 8.3.8 kernel modules the project provides dozens of kmod RPM packages and hundreds of kernel modules for a variety of hardware and kernel functionality. In this case we are looking for DRBD users willing to test these packages and provide feedback and support in our support channels for future users. In case there is interest, we can provide drbd 8.0.16 packages on request. We welcome your feedback on our mailinglist and bug-tracker, respectively at: http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo http://elrepo.org/bugs/main_page.php Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Upgrading to 2.6.32
On Sat, 1 May 2010, maillis...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM, maillis...@gmail.com wrote: I want to upgrade a 5.4 box with the 2.618 kernel to a shiny new 2.6.32 kernel. Anyone done it? Is it possible? Are there gotcha's to watch out for? Any advice is appreciated. A link to a decent howto would be awesome. You did not tell us why you want to run 2.6.32 on CentOS 5.4. I assume you are aware of backporting and 2.6.18 is not the same as vanilla kernel 2.6.18. Having said that, if you really, really need to run/build such a new kernel, I advice you read through this CentOS forum thread in its entirety: https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flattopic_id=23627forum=37 Thanks, Akemi. I really want to try the fs-cache feature to make an nfs caching proxy. It would be a godsend. I was wondering whether the standard make oldconfig would work when making a version jump this large. Are my drivers likely to break? RHEL5 actually used to ship FS-Cache as part of their 2.6.18 kernel. You can find an interesting article on LWN about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/312708/ It used to be a technology preview up to 5.2, but I think it disappeared in the release notes of 5.3. And there is a bugzilla entry on to why: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481579 Since FS-Cache was not mainlined, I think Red Hat ditched the idea of making it a supported option for the remaining 5 years of RHEL5. I guess testing with RHEL6 beta and then moving to CentOS 6 eventually is the safest option for production use. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] u/d Newsletter/1003 by TimoSchoeler
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
thus R P Herrold spake:
Fetch the desired duplicity source code from
https://code.launchpad.net/duplicity/, unpack it and change
in its directory. There, just issue
+ {{{
- python setup.py install
+ python setup.py install}}}
I see the above fragment in the draft newsletter, and frankly
am disappointed at proposed content not using the packaging
system. It is clearly not a 'best practice'. The item in
question will run as root, and one assumes will over time be
updated and have security fixes.
In a CentOS publication, we should not be proposing installing
time bombs that a later admin 'cannot see'. We are all that
later admin as time packages and we forget the details of a
particular installation
I absolutely agree with you; my 'plan' was to write it that way (in the
draft), and -- if my spare time allows -- build an appropriate RPM and
maybe even get it integrated in one of the repos. Then, I could modify
it to the 'decent way'.
As backup plan, I could just continue and use the not up-to-date
rpmforge package.
Or provide a SPEC file for a duplicity update in RPMforge. It's not that
hard, but don't expect someone else to do it for you...
--
-- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] compiling FahMON for Centos? [SOLVED]
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Steve Huff wrote: On Apr 3, 2010, at 9:50 PM, fred smith wrote: I had some detritus from a failed installatin of wxgtk hanging around in /usr/local that confused heck out of fahmon's configure script. removed it, removed the fahmon sources and re-extracted the .tbz2 file, ran configure, ran make, and voila! as a side note: as a response to this thread, i have packaged FahMon in a RPM and submitted it to RPMforge. if you have a moment, please test out my unofficial builds, available here: http://orannis.hmdc.harvard.edu/rpmforge/fahmon/ and let me know if there are any issues with them. also, please don't publicize this URL :) I build the package today and everything looks good. There is only one concern with this build, it includes some wx-library and it does not provide/require it (on purposes). In itself this will work, but it's not good practice. We can fix this in the future if we get a conflict. The package is available from RPMforge tomorrow. Thanks Steve ! -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NTFS and elrepo
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote: and I suspect you are actually using ntfs-3g... Indeed, this has to be looked into. Rod, could you show us the output from: rpm -qa kmod\* and ls -l `find /lib/modules -name ntfs.ko` (if this command gives you a list of your current directory, then please don't post the output) Beware that even when the ntfs kernel module is loaded, it doesn't mean that you are not using ntfs-3g. Especially if you are using automounting it might still pick ntfs-3g as mount.ntfs ships with ntfs-3g (or when using gnome even gnome-vfs2-ntfs) over kmod-ntfs. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] timekeeping on VMware guests
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:31:03PM -0700, nate wrote: Carlos Santana wrote: Howdy, I am having time-drift issues on my CentOS VM. I had referred to following documentation: http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/VMWare_Server , however it didn't help. I used kickstart for creating this VM and I am listing important steps in ref to timekeeping issue. Any comments or suggestion would be appreciated. [..] VMware Tools not installed. You should certainly install vmware tools, and enable time sync to the guest. Also don't run an ntp server in a Vmware VM. This is what I'd always thought, but the VMware KB link[1] referenced in the other reply in this thread seems to indicate that best practice is to use NTP + kernel w/ clock/divider options (unless it's new enough to not need it) and to *not* use the VMware Tools host time sync. That said, you should certainly still have VMware Tools installed, it just sounds like the host time sync is no longer preferred... Also note that they recommend you remove the local time source in ntp.conf... Indeed, they changed course over time once they learned that NTP could be made to work reliably when using tinker panic 0. I have had my share of VMware timekeeping troubles the past 5 years, mostly because the recommendations didn't always apply to what we were seeing. We still use Host-Guest synchronization for ESX 2.0 VM guests, but most of the infrastructure has been migrated, recently to ESX 3.5. VMware never could confirm that the recommendations laid out in the knowledge base article also applies to ESX 2.0. They seem to update that document (and the timekeeping PDF) for every new ESX release, and removing anything that applied to the previous release :-/ And without a detailed changelog and no access to previous versions of the document you may get paranoid or get into discussions based on different copies of that document. I've been there too :-) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote: On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Brian Mathis brian.mathis+centosd...@gmail.com wrote: What you currently have is the lock model, and with few admins the idea of opening up the system seems like a bad one because those admins will need to deal with all those errors, but this is not the case. As soon as it's open, you'll have more people monitoring and more people who can fix errors as they are introduced. We already have 70 people who would be able to do so (no idea how many of these accounts are still in use). Do I see those going over pages? Rarely, it's nearly always the same persons. Could it be that entry to collaborate is not low enough to make it work ? If you have too many rules, people might be afraid/unable to make the necessary fix. Especially if it requires sending a mail and decision by committee. My worries are that you are taking something for granted that is caused by the current rules, to keep those rules in place. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] RPMforge.net down
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Niki Kovacs wrote: Ron Blizzard a écrit : It appears that the RPMforge.net site is down. Can someone confirm and possibly advise when it might be expected back? I can't get to RPMforge.net either, but Dag Wieer's site is still up. I thought these were the same? Let's see : # yum check-update Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, priorities Determining fastest mirrors * rpmforge: apt.sw.be * base: mirror.in2p3.fr * updates: mirror.in2p3.fr * extras: mirror.in2p3.fr (...) rpmforge : ### 5948/9586 ... RPMForge works OK here ( = South France). The repositories are fine. The website is strictly speaking as well, but redirects to: https://rpmrepo.org/RPMforge And the rpmrepo infrastructure is unavailable now for a week or so ? -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-qa] Updated livecd building tool
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Patrice Guay wrote: I updated the livecd-tools package from version 013 to 014. This update introduces new interesting features like : - support for Xen kernel - built-in md5sum into the resulting LiveCD ISO - a new API See https://projects.centos.org/trac/livecd/wiki/GetToolset for instructions on how to get this updated toolset. Since it is a major update, I expect some bugs. I am looking for feedback from people interested in respining their own LiveCD kickstart files with the new tool. As usual, if you encounter a bug or would like to submit a patch, create a ticket from the CentOS LiveCD project page: https://projects.centos.org/trac/livecd Hey Patrice, Together with Geerd-Dietger Hoffmann I am preparing a custom LiveCD for giving presentations with your wiimote and CentOS 5.3. This solution was specifically made for FrOSCon 2009 this weekend. I implemented most of the suggestions I made previously, and integrated both the multimedia packages (players/codecs) as well as the hardware drivers from ELRepo. To have sufficient diskspace for a CD (700MB) I had to remove some productivity applications and clean up other items you normally would keep on a LiveCD. I will make the kickstart-file available once I have finished this work. Thanks for your work, without it I would probably never have looked at it ! PS I am also planning to include your work as an example in my own presentation for FrOSCon. PS2 I had to make slight modifications to livecd-creator to make it work with a newer syslinux. A newer syslinux has various advantages. I'll probably make some more modifications to it after FrOSCon. Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS Project Infrastructure
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, R P Herrold wrote: On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Bob Taylor wrote: Personally, it disgusts me. Have I said I don't appreciate it? Yes, actually -- I call b*llsh*t -- you who have done nothing are here, and eat without charge at our table, and 'it disgusts' you Begone, troll Russ, I am quite concerned about your responses (from a @centos.org address). You can agree or disagree with the content of criticism, you can ignore it or refute it. But it's poor judgement to dismiss it the way you do because people have not contributed. (Unless you want users to simply shut up) It shows that you (as a project's representative) are not interested or concerned about the users. And any opinion is only worthy if coming from a contributed user (which limits you to the selected few that are in the inner circle). Is everything else b*llshit ? You equally torpedo'd Marcus Moeller who _is_ a contributing user, even if you don't think high of his contributions, I feel you should refrain from discouraging users the way you do in this thread. It's not the community fostering that we need right now. Criticism is good if you handle it well. Channel it. Enable people to contribute to fix it. Give orders and provide details. I am sure that this approach is more fruitful in the long run. A potential contributor is not willing to spend effort if there's no hope it is worthwhile. Give hope ! Show it is worthwhile ! PS We started the newsletter (which Marcus is now leading) to highlight success stories. Show who helped contributing and how one could contribute. Give credit where credit is due. More positivism... -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Open Letter to Lance Davis
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Rainer Duffner wrote: Am 30.07.2009 um 23:32 schrieb Neil Aggarwal: http://dag.wieers.com/blog/the-burden-of-keeping-things-private That posting states: I heard some vague numbers, likely in the 4 digits EUR range per month but real figures are only known by one person. For at least three years people were donating money and sponsors were paying for website ads while the money was not flowing into the project, where it went to I can only guess. If this is true, it means the people donating to this project have been ripped off. Can someone confirm this? What - the statement on Dag's website or your assumption? ;-) Rip-off is a harsh word. Ok, so I donated nothing so far, but still, this is a bit unfair to the rest of the team who are (now) scrambling to get their act together. To be honest, I didn't feel as strong about the money from the past as I did about the money that was still being made when I found out about this. You cannot turn back time, but you can influence what is happening now. (And for all I know it could be about peanuts as well, as I stated I have no first-hand evidence of how much was being made) That said, I would have been willing to consider the donated money as some sort of ransom to get the domain, trademark and logo rights back and use that as a new start for the project. But of course you need Lance for any such deal and that's where I guess the Open Letter comes into play. But this was not the only reason to leave the team, if it was I would have left earlier. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recent HPLIP: where's that doc?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Niki Kovacs wrote: Niki Kovacs a écrit : But I can't seem to find that page anymore. Anyone remembers it? I'll answer that myself, since I just found it. You just have to jump through several burning loops on the website in order to access it: http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/install/manual/distros/redhatenterprise.html I have more recent hplip packages (and willing to update them if necessary) at: http://packages.sw.be/hplip/ (Or from the test repository) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS 4.8 available time????
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote: 2009/7/20 David Hrbáč hrbac.c...@seznam.cz: Karanbir Singh napsal(a): yup. We have already looked into the possibility of getting updates out during a point release cycle, and will prolly be moving to that process with the next point release ( 5.4 ). Karanbir, glad to hear this. We have been discussing this a lot of times. Hope the process's really going to happen. It's very important to not stop releasing security updates within the distro rebuild time. Some updates may depend on packages that are part of the next minor version, so you either have to decide if you release parts of the upcoming version or to wait. In such a case I personally would prefer to wait. I guess the best strategy is to release as soon as 'possible'(*). (*) Where 'possible' means something quicker than 2 months after Red Hat :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote: BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like ...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages... or any other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason, I think a lot of users will start looking for alternatives. First of all, when I said this, I was no longer part of the CentOS team. Secondly, I didn't say that literally, but I don't object to the wording. For desktop use we do have up-to-date desktop packages. Not firefox 3.5 (wasn't released then) but a recent Network Manager, pidgin, firefox. So I wasn't lying. If that means that people will look for alternatives, that's fine. I would be lying if I said that we only had old desktop applications, wouldn't I ? CentOS already covers the server market, it doesn't need a push there. But a lot of people see CentOS as a pure server OS. Which I am trying to change by telling people how CentOS is perfect for the desktop for 99% of the people. I am leaving out the 1% of people that want to have the latest and greatest in everything, that are developers, or have religious technology preference. If Linux would have 100 million users right now, it wouldn't cover the potential 1% of the whole market if you look at a desktop-using population. Again, if your goal is to be 100% compatible with RH, then RH dictates the package version. And just in case some people are not very clear on RH's goals for the foreseeable future: It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future. http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/ This does not mean that other/extra repositories can't and don't exist, but it should always be made crystal clear (and it has been a few days ago), that the base is never compromised. You read of course what you want to read. And Red Hat is right, they do not target the _consumer_ market. Which is fair. There is little money to be made in the consumer market (not if you don't have a lot of money/effort going to support etc...) But they do target the Enterprise desktop market and therefor they do have a desktop product that works fine for what it is. And most people don't need more than that. (I certainly don't) So don't make the mistake that so many others have made, which is that Red Hat is not interested in the Desktop. They are very much interested, that is partly why they bought Qumranet, and why they spend so much money on Desktop related development in Fedora. Red Hat sees the desktop as the next step in revenue, but not in the consumer market. They see it in the enterprise market. That's crystal clear for me. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] New HOWTO: Setting up multiple IP addresses on the same network interface
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, JohnS wrote: On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 21:59 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: snips We started more than one thread regarding this back in January: [CentOS-docs] Improving the PageRank of individual wiki pages http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2009-January/002137.html [CentOS-docs] Improving the website and forums http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2009-January/002138.html A lot of stuff has been suggested to improve individual results in Google. Yet, little materialized after that discussion. Before having the discussion again, maybe someone can summarize some of the stuff ? PS There were also some other threads that I started with suggestions for improving to contributing to the wiki. I guess posting the new-year's weekend is not a good idea to get things going :) --- Prepend per Above link: Most of what was said was pointed out by me. Honestly there is no sense in discussing it until there is a final take on what is going to be used as a final Web App. What matters the most is the Web App being chosen or used. SEO starts at the base code level for that specific App. Lets think a sec. Can Moin do a 300 redirect? IE;301/webapp/info ? That starts at the raw code level. John, I agree for the website. But for the wiki, we need some fixes too and we're not going to replace the wiki by a 'Web App'. So whatever we can do to improve the pages (as stated in those threads) we should do as soon as possible. I noticed a lot of other centos website are being created by people to fill in the void there is because our wiki simply sucks from a Google point of view: http://www.centoslinuxhcl.org/ http://www.centoshowto.org/ http://www.centoshelp.org/ http://www.centosguides.com/ Try anything: centos wireless centos hardware centos laptop centos x200s The last ones are really to cry for because lots of these results do have a link to our wiki, but the wiki is simply missing from the first 100 results... Even searching for: x200s site:wiki.centos.org results not in the page I was hoping for. As if the wiki (or at least big parts of it) is simply ignored by Google. We have a robots.txt that has nothing really in it. From what I can find, an empty robots.txt should have the same effect as no robots.txt, but ours is not exactly empty in the true meaning of the word. So maybe we should empty it, or simply remove it altogether ? PS The wiki does seem to be indexed, so I doubt it is the robots.txt -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: What was the problem with audacious again ? # yum install audacious ... Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 for package: audacious ... -- Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency. You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one. We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine. I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they don't build! When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-( Care to give an example ? Then I can point you to the buildlog and you might be able to find the cause of your problem by comparing ? Without an example, or without an error of why it does not build I cannot even try to fix it. Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us? When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-( The audacious package is willing to wait that long :) If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3,then this package is broekn. Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. I don't think any other repository is even doing this though. Now you're wrong. You must be wrong. Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2-5.3. This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build. Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right? Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too. The plugins belong to another package actually. I don't know what is wrong with it, but there are buildlogs. I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4. That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS FOR EL5, AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3. You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!! I never claimed any compatibility, no waranty, if it breaks you can provide me a patch. Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really. Can you please list them. I like statistics. I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.) Still you complain about lots of packages that fail to rebuild, but if I ask what these are I only get 2 items: - audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather see this than effort diluted by taking on a contrib repo. Right: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png After all, I love (some) charts from time to time. I'd be very interested to have a similar chart of the average delay for updates plotted in time. Not because I think it shows something fantastic, but rather to give us a better target to meet. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency. Which still == broken repo. Sure, but when you started that thread you didn't mention your problem with the comix package. I was still confused why you would talk about SRPMs that do not build when audacious was not having this problem. You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one. On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the SRPM, but the SPEC+tarball. Which don't build. Buildlogs are available from: http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/ I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-) Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ? Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all. That's not how Open Source works. I do something properly so that it works well for me. And I provide it hoping that people that have some other use (or expectations) can help me as well. You have a different expectation. Either you can help the project, or you use it as-is, or you don't use it. For me everyone of those is fine. You choose door 2 and I accept. Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really. Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it. That's not the point. If you have problem X with Ubuntu, your only guarantee to see it fixed is by paying Canonical. In any other case you can report it or fix it yourself. None of these options guarantee that it will be fixed in Ubuntu. But fixing it yourself has the highest probability. - audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :) But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages! Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well. I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken. You see the difference :) Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages. Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Dag Wieers wrote: On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: - audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :) But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages! Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well. I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken. You see the difference :) Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages. Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point. Now that I read this again, you only proved that 1 is broken, the other simply doesn't build for you. I have the proof it build for me :) Maybe the BuildRequires are incorrect, because I work with static buildroots, not dynamic ones. And as a consequence my BuildRequires could be insufficient. (Doubtful because it was made by Dries) Maybe the BuildRequires doesn't say exactly what version it needs. Because doing that would mean you have to go and see what the lowest version is with which is works. Which is time-consuming. (We do build from the same SPEC file for RHEL2, RH7, RH9, RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5) But that doesn't mean it is broken. It is certainly sub-optimal, and if you report such cases we do fix them. Imagine that we would do exactly as you say, even then Radu-Christian² may state on this list with a lot of fanfare that certain packages we ship may not function properly because our process does not include 100% functional testing and we should dedicate our time to functionally test an RPM before shipping it. And drop any packages we don't do this for. So this whole situation is not black and white. In fact if we would have unlimited time, unlimited money or unlimited contributors I would consider your suggestions seriously. But right now, any effort would be hurting some other effort and I would rather have X new packages then spending the same time to remove Y other packages. Because I think my time would simply be worth more spending on something else. You obviously do think this time would be worth spending, and have been told what is needed to get it fixed :) I don't want to be the person that denies improving what is suboptimal though. So my offer for commit access still stands, in case you'd reconsider. Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: I am still waiting for it. I am willing to give you commit access to fix all the things that irritate you. I offered the same to others. Actually, how do we know what builds and validates in RF and what doesn't? You should rather trigger a global SRPMS rebuild and... whatever fails to build should go to /dev/null! What was the problem with audacious again ? Take the example of RF's Comix package. I dunno how have you built the RPM, because the SRPM won't build no matter what I tried! (I even suspected that someone has built Comix on a Fedora box, and since the binary seemed to work on CentOS/EL too...) We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine. I hate to first create an SRPM just to build the package, because RPM was great because you'd only get an SRPM if the package build fine. The Fedora people turned this the other way around when their buildsystem started from SRPMs. In my view, a repo should be consistent, and its own SRPMS should only need the official EL clone repo to build, or whatever is agreed to be a required dependency (e.g. Fusion declaratively requires EPEL, and even my tiny repo requires or *might* require EPEL for *some* dependencies). Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us? Because everytime you say what your wish is, it feels as if you are asking me to do it and I already said I don't have the time for it. If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3, then this package is broekn. Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. I don't think any other repository is even doing this though. I am sorry to decline your offer: I don't need access to a 8,000-package repo, for later I could be accused of some breakage I might have not caused. Unless RF starts from zero (that is, by tossing whatever does not build), I am not interested: better not touch it. That's a strange position. So you complain because you see the flaws, but you only want to help when there are no flaws and in fact there is nothing to fix. Otherwise, everyone is free to rebuild from: http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/el5/SRPMS/ If it doesn't work... c'est la vie. This is the first time in my life that I've built RPMs, so... Wait. So you blame me for all these things that you don't care about for your own repository ? :-) So I can fix this by simply saying: If it doesn't work... c'est la vie. So there you have it, all is well now :) Umm... so let me get it straight (yes, I can be very mean): you *update* or *add* new packages instead of fixing the broken ones? Isn't this approach more like... Ubuntu's? If it doesn't work... c'est la vie ! We have those 400 rock solid packages, even more than that. I'd say less than 5% are in a bad shape. And audacious is probaby one of the more visible ones. But again, why do you expect me to fix them, when you have a need for it ? Because a repo should be consistent. It should be able to rebuild from its own SRPMS. Whatever doesn't fit the picture should go to /dev/null. If it doesn't work... c'est la vie !! But seriously, it's not 5%. If a SRPM doesn't build, then it's broken. This way you could very well have 20% of breakage, in real terms. Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build. I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4. You know, in the F/LOSS world the idea is that the sources be available *and* that they would build. If it doesn't work... c'est la vie !!! (I am getting used to it now :)) Then do something about it. Instead of a consumer (and complainer), become a producer (and contributor). VLC and MPlayer have so many dependencies, that my nerves just broke. Really. I wanted to build them, but then... So you are just lazy and you want me to do your dirty work, unless it is something simple, then you do it yourself. Regardless you prefer to complain :) But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*. 7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of people to maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*... It is not. Everything that works, works. The things that do not work, can be fixed. I don't want to remove things that can be fixed because recreating a package from scratch is harder than fixing one that used to work. But until now I only know that audacious does not work. And you didn't offer to fix it. I haven't heard of any other. Did you say 7600 packages failed ? Can you please list them. I like statistics. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Linux Advocate wrote: beranger...@yahoo.com... , u have a problem with dag...and now it looks like u have a problem with linus torvalds himself u talk abt the need for cooperation,etc but you apparently dont get that 'you have to give respect to get respect' 'give cooperation to get cooperation' I don't have a problem with Radu-Cristian, I think it's great that he provides me some feedback. He wants me to do some things for him for free (unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire). I want him to help me fix those things for free. So I guess we are both very alike, we want each other to fix those things for free :) -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbáč wrote: Dag Wieers napsal(a): The difference is that you can only install one distribution, but you can install tons of incompatible repositories. And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which is what Fedora and EPEL wants you to believe) is just debunked by yourself above :-) The most important reason I still have RPMforge is because I don't want to let my users down because there is no real upgrade path (the fact that you for some reason need RPMforge is the proof). If the last user wants to turn off the light, then I know I can start doing something else ;-) PS To be honest, we could use some more people that want to help, if something is missing or not being maintained, offer to maintain it ! But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*. PS2 I discussed with christoph to set up a proper project management system that would encourage collaboration more. But we don't need more bugs, we need more people to help fix bugs, really. I'd like to say this. Dag et al have done wonderful job and I thank you for it Dag. But we (the community, fellow I know, myself) have been wanting and willing to cooperate on much huge basis, I personally feel this way. I'm talking about rpmrepo.org project. I guess Dag's interest in this project was driven by the problems with his repo too which some of you are complaining about. The aim was to create platform, not strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed. Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The project has been started but never really haven't happened. Yes, I feel not happy about it. So we have centosplus and extras which are the repos with access denied for packages inclusion. Dag's rpmforge which is so huge with a lot of dependencies not suitable for testing/bleeding edge/alternative packages. So what's the suitable repo? That's why people are going to run own repos :o( I do it myself. I guess we need suitable platform we can use within the centos community and we need it now. The biggest problem for me is that we do not have the infrastructure in RPMforge. I still need to build the x86 and x86_64 stuff, Fabian does the PPC packages. Various people maintain SPEC files and contribute changes. But they only get pushed when Fabian or me initiate it. I don't want to sit in the middle, but without setting up new infrastructure and processes we'll continue to use what works now. It's not optimal, but it works. And we know about things that can be improved, but without people helping with QA and automate reporting problems, we just continue the way it is. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbác( wrote: Niki Kovacs napsal(a): Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I use VLC and Audacity at the same time). And if a package is not in RPMForge (which happens, but rarely), well, I grab the SRPM and build it myself. I also have a small repo, but only for private use, so replication is easy. Niki, I'm at the very same point. Only rpmforge and my repos user. David, I am happy to add you to the RPMforge subversion so you can maintain those things from within RPMforge if you like. Maybe this discussion can induce some change in how we work or who we accept. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote: I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that had I not given EPEL a very low priority, it would have replaced approximately 1300 packages. Probably those whose priority is to have the latest and greatest should be using another distro (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.). The philosophy behind Enterprise Distros is stability and security and long life, not having the latest and greatest packages. There was a time where CentOS contrib repo has been announced. It was meant to be a package source for 'community-contributed' packages. So why not just merge stable RPMForge packages over there and start a 'semi-official' CentOS orientated repository from the scratch. I am all for a solution, but unless it already works I would not call it a solution, but a short-term (and possibly long-term) risk. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Les Mikesell wrote: Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: OTOH, Dag is in a funny position: he's the main maintainer of RPMforge, which has 2 main issues: (1) It's broken, at least partially. Try install audacious for one. (2) It's incompatible with EPEL. Try install MPlayer and VLC with EPEL enabled. I don't like this situation either, but when 2 repositories have conflicts, shouldn't the one that has been serving people longer have some consideration by the newer players? That is, shouldn't EPEL work to avoid conflicts with pre-existing, well known repositories? At LinuxTag I offered to work towards merging by spending time on making both repositories compatible only if the Fedora project values it as well. We can't make them compatible without merging simply because new incompatibilities are easy to introduce and Fedora will never accept a policy where they validate compatibility before making available. Now, I always thought that RPMforge wouldn't have the resources to start making the repositories compatible, but apparently the Fedora projecy is simply not even interested in doing this. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
