Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7.5 (1804) and NetworkManager
Gnome's control-center now requires NetworkManager-wifi. But it's only a soft requirement, no shared libs involved. To keep your workstation NM-free, you want to install a dummy package that provides NetworkManager-wifi but actually contains nothing, ideally before updating to 7.5. Here's a script to create such a dummy: https://github.com/larsks/fakeprovide If you do this, control-center shows a sad face and some text (Oops, blah, blah, ...) in the WiFi tab. Just the same you always got in the network tab without NM. That's all. -M. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ssh connections not closing when Qt application is opened?
Dave Johansen wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086971 I have been able to reproduce the above issue on my home network and at work, but RedHat is claiming it is not a bug, so can some people on this list give it a try and see if they can reproduce it? If you connect with '-vvv' you can see multiple x11 connections being open: debug3: channel 1: status: The following connections are open: #0 client-session (t4 r0 i0/0 o0/0 fd 4/5 cfd -1) #1 x11 (t4 r2 i3/0 o3/0 fd 7/7 cfd -1) #2 x11 (t4 r3 i0/0 o0/0 fd 8/8 cfd -1) #3 x11 (t4 r4 i0/0 o0/0 fd 9/9 cfd -1) The additional x11 connections are from automatically launched dbus stuff. On exit they don't get closed, therefore the hang. This happens on C6 and C7 with GTK+ 2/3 or Qt4/5 but not with GTK+ 1, Qt3 or legacy apps and it's nothing new. It just never gets fixed. (I think it's a dbus bug.) Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] RH fucks up quite often recently
Latest really rude show stoppers were/are: el6: - librsvg2: your private fork bomb for gnome - kernel: scheduler completely broken on numa systems - qt: kde unusable when going up from -26 to -28 el5: - firefox hangs on quit after latest ESR update - (totem plugins no longer work too) What I am using an enterprise distro for?? -Michael PS: I'm only wondering :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 3g usb dongle - Huawei E1552
Christo Larsen wrote: Running Centos 6.4 6.5 is current, nobody cares for 6.4 anymore. Any Idea´s? Put it into a Windows machine to switch it once. Then send it something like AT^U2DIAG=0 over the serial line to switch it permanently. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] I want to ask about some Kernel level operations.
Eliezer wrote: What would be a clean buildroot for? Well, only God himself did the initial creative work just once -- after that, He let things go, because it was already to complicated even for Him -- or perfect. Anyway, because He had not planned doing it again and reiterate, we now have theology and the subject of theodicy. And remember: even the pope uses 'sudo' when he speaks 'ex cathedra'. So wtf are you asking for?? -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Serial Console Config in 6.5
Camron W. Fox wrote: After upgrading from 6.4 to 6.5, our serial console configuration non longer work. We have the following upstart file: ... According to the comments in /etc/init/serial.conf you shouldn't have a /etc/init/ttyS0.conf or do anything to /etc/securetty. This is all handled automatically. You just add 'console=tty0 console=ttySX,YZ' to the kernel line in grub and that's it. I did it like this a couple of days ago on 6.5. Works as advertised for me but I have never used a serial console before. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Build environment for totem-2.16.7-7.el5_6.1.src.rpm
This package has a build requirement 'gecko-devel' which is fulfilled by 'xulrunner-devel'. But in the process of building the browser plugins two tools named 'xpidl' and 'xpt_link' are necessary. They werde once part of 'gecko-devel' but are now replaced by other tools. I haven't found any package that has these tools all the way back to 5.0. Maybe the makers of CentOS can give a hint. After all this package was build for C5. Thanks Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Apple movie trailers on Centos6/Firefox
Fred Smith wrote: Apparently I'm the only Centos user who is unable to view the quicktime trailers,... or maybe nobody but me is interested. Assuming you have the necessary codecs installed, it still doesn't work, because Apple checks your QuickTime-Version with some piece of Javascript. It seems to check the same info you see with 'about:plugins'. The totem plugin says 7.21 which is too low. Make it something higher, like 9.99 to be set forever. -Michael PS: There's no official way to do that. You can either patch and then rebuild from source -- or you just modify the binary ... (I admit to have done the latter.) But this is all you need. The rest is taken care of out of the box. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] skype not starting anymore, prelink issue?
Yves Bellefeuille wrote: This point has already been answered on this mailing list (and elsewhere). A bit of search in the archives and elsewhere would quickly bring you this: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Skype I'm very familiar with that document. :-) And many users, including myself, couldn't get Skype 4.1 to work on CentOS 64 bits using those instructions. If Skype 4.1 did work on your 64-bit system, I'm very interested in knowing the details; you can contact me directly if you wish. I have posted it months ago here: http://community.skype.com/t5/Linux/Skype-for-Redhat-Enterprise-6/td-p/1210686 Actually, I also posted to the c6 fora back then and suggested to document it more precisely in the wiki. That posting was immediately closed without further ado. Someone even followed me to the skype fora, only to state that I'm just talking bullshit and that http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Skype has all you need to know. And of course yes: Skype-4.1 is running nicely here on x86_64 for all these months. And it doesn't require anything special -- and certainly not breaking your installation with some weird Qt-4.7. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] A couple of 32-bit packages got no update in 6.3/x86_64
Namely: * hivex * hivex-devel * librdmac * librdmac-devel * sanlock-libs * sanlock-devel and maybe others. Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it). -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Maintainer for Krita on CentOS
m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: erm... that is going to mean that everytime there is an update for either QT or anything that it links into or anything that is in a lib associated down that chain - the entire stack needs to be rebuilt. Are you sure this is a good idea ? I'm not sure, but the guy who is maintaining it seems to think so. I advised him to build for CentOS 6, not 5, but 5 is much more widely distributed and there are other reasons for staying with CentOS 5, such as AutoDesk support. I hate having to worry about multiple libraries. And in updates of the std. packages, it can break your specialized one. I would have to recommend to your krista list to build against the library we have now. Nothing in el5 depends on the qt4-4.2.x that ships with el5. It's an old, rotten, and completely pointless package. Nothing of any interest could be build with it for years now, probably never ever was it of any use to anyone. I replaced it with a rebuild of qt4-4.6.2-20 from el6. This gives me a common and useable base for both el5 and el6. That could be a sensible approach for a krita.el5 package, too. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Marc Deop wrote: On Sunday 26 February 2012 20:39:03 Michael Lampe wrote: So I can build, but the resulting RPM cannot be installed -- if not forced. (No problems then as everything is there.) Why don't you add the files needed as dependencies to the spec file? (it's one of the beautis of the rpm system over deb) Duplicate them, or what? They are already there. Only not registered with rpm. (Intel's compiler comes with several runtime libs, and openmpi is not a program, but an additional runtime for building one's own programs.) The best approximation is to remove the intel deps. Can be done. Other's did it before, and I did it too. Only I don't even have a borderline addiction to rpm. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
I'm building my own openmpi packages derived from upstream SRPMs. Problem: The ones built with Intel's compiler can only be installed by force, because Intel doesn't register their provided libs with rpm. Any idea how this can be done? (Alternative ideas are appreciated as well -- as long as they don't read as: make Intel fix this.) -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Frank Cox wrote: A dependency is supposed to be something that's required for a program to work. Removing the dependency from the rpm won't magically make a program work if it really does require the functionality provided by that dependency. It's there. Just not registered with rpm. -- Intel's fault, I cannot do anything about it. I'm heading for a compromise ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Frank Cox wrote: Edit the dependency list to suit. Maybe I was too dumb to properly explain it: The Intel stuff is there implicitly. And it _is_ needed. Both for building and then running. But it's not registered with rpm by Intel! So I _can_ build, but the resulting RPM cannot be installed -- if not forced. (No problems then as everything _is_ there.) The compromise I see is removing these explicit dependencies. They are fulfilled, but not formally available. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: I totally lost you. No problem. Play the game of chess like your namesake did so well. :) Please provide specifics, what package, is it in rpm or not, details please, so we do not chase out own tails. Gimme a trick: How to unregister an implicit but formally unavailable runtime dependency in a spec file? It's there at build time and therfore automatically used. Package builds fine. But it can only be installed by force, because the implicit dependency is explicitly recorded in the RPM. I want to get rid of that, because fixing Intel's stuff is not an option. Still unclear?? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Frank Cox wrote: Gimme a trick: How to unregister an implicit but formally unavailable runtime dependency in a spec file? I've given you the solution twice. Here is a more detailed description of the exact lines that you need to edit in the spec file: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html We are talking about different things: My stuff is linked against 'libfoo'. When the package is finally build, it records this depedency because of that. Now this package requires libfoo to be installed. It's there but not registered with rpm! That's what I want to get rid of. Something like 'Unrequire' perhaps. Or another trick: IIRC, at some time taking the x bit from libs achieved that, but it's not working anymore since quite some time. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Antonio da Silva Martins Junior wrote: Have you tried to make a fake src.rpm package that provides this 'libfoo' and install it ? It didn't need to install anything just tell to the rpm library that it provides 'libfoo'. Normally, I leave the building straightforward. Of course, I can also climb to the roof, use the fire exit, arrive at the backyard and find my way out somehow from there. Another way is to just force the install, but, doing it you will have some problems during updates. Of course, I just do that. Since years, and there are no problems with updates. Only with EL6 and the automatic 'yum ckeck' I'm getting pissed somehow: ** Found 11 pre-existing rpmdb problem(s), 'yum check' output follows: libcilkrts.so.5()(64bit), libifcoremt.so.5()(64bit), ... I know that already! So I was humbly asking for some trick here. There must be some, even if Google didn't find me one. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
John Stanley wrote: AutoProvReq: no Seemed like a good hint, but doesn't do the trick on 5.7. The RPMs still require the Intel libs. Hmmm ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is there a way to _remove_ dependencies from an RPM built from source?
Les Mikesell wrote:
Have you tried to make a fake src.rpm package that provides this
'libfoo' and
install it ? It didn't need to install anything just tell to the rpm
library that it
provides 'libfoo'.
Normally, I leave the building straightforward.
Of course, I can also climb to the roof, use the fire exit, arrive at
the backyard and find my way out somehow from there.
Not sure I get the analogy. You are apparently working with 2
uncoordinated rpm builders, so your choices are to get the original
authors to coordinate the provides/depends, fix it yourself, or ignore
the brokeness.
I can only do no. 3 -- take things as they are and try to make the best
of it.
The uncoordinated rpm builders are Redhat and especially Intel.
Removing the build deps from runtime is possible. Only Google finds you
a lot of nonsense. Plain bullshit, old stuff from yesteryear, or stuff
from the future (CentOS wise).
To recap: I'm in the middle and still want to build a sensible rpm for
openmpi with intel:
%define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
%define __find_requires %{nil}
Order is important. After that, '__find_requires' can even be made into
a script, that falls back on '/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires' and
filters out what is disturbing.
Hey! I love rpm! Whenever I feel real bad, I turn to rpm! (And then
start to ask for help ...)
:)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Anyone already tried to backport the latest ASPM kernel patch to 6.2?
Michael Lampe wrote: In other words: my BIOS is broken. But it's broken for all Lenovo Notebooks. So ... It seems mine is particularly broken: The BIOS isn't even lying, it realy disables ASPM! That at least is my conclusion after looking at this https://wiki.edubuntu.org/Kernel/PowerManagementASPM and a closer inspection of 'lspci -vvv'. The backported patch may be correct after all. It may be a candiate for centosplus kernel. If someone else wants to test: I can upload a kernel with this patch applied. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Anyone already tried to backport the latest ASPM kernel patch to 6.2?
After going from CentOS 5.7 to 6.2, a lot of things turned out to be
much better, but there are also quite some regressions. The most obvious
one is power consumption on my notebook. It was notably lower before.
The ASPM issue introduced in 2.6.38 was widely reported and discussed,
and the 6.2 kernel has exacatly this code as a backport.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=2f671e2dbff6eb5ef4e2600adbec550c13b8fe72
So I started to experiment with the upstream patch:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git;a=commitdiff;h=3c076351c4027a56d5005a39a0b518a4ba393ce2;hp=69166fbf02c7a21745013f2de037bf7af26e4279
To make it apply, one needs to change 'pci_is_pcie(pdev)' into
'pdev-is_pcie'. One also needs to fiddle a little with the first chunk.
I came up with the patch attached, but unfortunately the new kernel
showed no improvement. Most probably I got something wrong.
Anyone else here who tried this or is interested in sorting this out?
Thanks,
Michael
diff -ur a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c 2012-01-19 19:45:17.0 +0100
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c 2012-02-12 03:20:19.104634583 +0100
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
#include linux/pci.h
#include linux/pci-acpi.h
#include linux/acpi.h
+#include linux/pci-aspm.h
#include acpi/acpi_bus.h
#include acpi/acpi_drivers.h
#include acpi/apei.h
@@ -583,12 +584,21 @@
status = acpi_pci_osc_control_set(device-handle, flags,
OSC_PCI_EXPRESS_CAP_STRUCTURE_CONTROL);
- if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
+ if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
dev_info(root-bus-bridge,
ACPI _OSC control (0x%02x) granted\n, flags);
- else
+ if (acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM) {
+ /*
+* We have ASPM control, but the FADT indicates
+* that it's unsupported. Clear it.
+*/
+ pcie_clear_aspm(root-bus);
+ }
+ } else {
dev_dbg(root-bus-bridge,
ACPI _OSC request failed (code %d)\n, status);
+ pcie_no_aspm();
+ }
}
return 0;
diff -ur a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
--- a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c2012-01-19 19:44:15.0 +0100
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c2012-02-12 01:39:31.441635301 +0100
@@ -195,7 +195,6 @@
if (acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags ACPI_FADT_NO_ASPM) {
printk(KERN_INFOACPI FADT declares the system doesn't support
PCIe ASPM, so disable it\n);
- pcie_clear_aspm();
pcie_no_aspm();
}
diff -ur a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c
--- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c 2012-01-19 19:45:17.0 +0100
+++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aspm.c 2012-02-12 01:39:31.449635162 +0100
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@
struct aspm_latency acceptable[8];
};
-static int aspm_disabled, aspm_force, aspm_clear_state;
+static int aspm_disabled, aspm_force;
static bool aspm_support_enabled = true;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(aspm_lock);
static LIST_HEAD(link_list);
@@ -500,9 +500,6 @@
int pos;
u32 reg32;
- if (aspm_clear_state)
- return -EINVAL;
-
/*
* Some functions in a slot might not all be PCIe functions,
* very strange. Disable ASPM for the whole slot
@@ -574,9 +571,6 @@
pdev-pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM)
return;
- if (aspm_disabled !aspm_clear_state)
- return;
-
/* VIA has a strange chipset, root port is under a bridge */
if (pdev-pcie_type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT
pdev-bus-self)
@@ -608,7 +602,7 @@
* the BIOS's expectation, we'll do so once pci_enable_device() is
* called.
*/
- if (aspm_policy != POLICY_POWERSAVE || aspm_clear_state) {
+ if (aspm_policy != POLICY_POWERSAVE) {
pcie_config_aspm_path(link);
pcie_set_clkpm(link, policy_to_clkpm_state(link));
}
@@ -649,8 +643,7 @@
struct pci_dev *parent = pdev-bus-self;
struct pcie_link_state *link, *root, *parent_link;
- if ((aspm_disabled !aspm_clear_state) || !pdev-is_pcie ||
- !parent || !parent-link_state)
+ if (!pdev-is_pcie || !parent || !parent-link_state)
return;
if ((parent-pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_ROOT_PORT)
(parent-pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM))
@@ -712,13 +705,18 @@
* pci_disable_link_state - disable pci device's link state, so the link will
* never enter specific states
*/
-static void __pci_disable_link_state(struct pci_dev *pdev, int state, bool
Re: [CentOS] Anyone already tried to backport the latest ASPM kernel patch to 6.2?
Patrick Lists wrote: Iirc to enable ASPM on Fedora the kernel must be booted with pcie_aspm=force. Maybe you need to use that option too? For more info see: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_aspm_solutionnum=1 That's no general solution. It may work, but (e.g.) it doesn't work for me on my Thinkpad X301. There are side-effects. The idea of the upstream patch is to mimic Windows: With 3.2.5 ASPM disabled means: When the ACPI says ASPM is disabled Linux will leave it alone, which is what Windows is doing. The assumption is that explicitly disabling ASPM is more problematic than doing nothing. (Copied somewhere from LKML.) In other words: my BIOS is broken. But it's broken for all Lenovo Notebooks. So ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Anyone already tried to backport the latest ASPM kernel patch to 6.2?
Rob Kampen wrote: So for those of us that do not understand the intricacies of ASPM / BIOS / ACPI, how do we ensure we are getting the best (least) power consumption? Hey! I was asking for people who can help me backport the upstream fix! I have a new ASUS G73S with i7 8 core processor - running CentOS 6.2 and loving it - no idea if this has or does not have ASPM support. What do I need to do to test / check? (Nothing. You have a fine battery!) - dmesg | grep -i aspm - lspci -vvv | grep -i aspm - ... - google, phoronix, etc. - ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Anyone already tried to backport the latest ASPM kernel patch to 6.2?
Michael Lampe wrote: Iirc to enable ASPM on Fedora the kernel must be booted with pcie_aspm=force. Maybe you need to use that option too? For more info see: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_aspm_solutionnum=1 That's no general solution. It may work, but (e.g.) it doesn't work for me on my Thinkpad X301. There are side-effects. The idea of the upstream patch is to mimic Windows: With 3.2.5 ASPM disabled means: When the ACPI says ASPM is disabled Linux will leave it alone, which is what Windows is doing. The assumption is that explicitly disabling ASPM is more problematic than doing nothing. (Copied somewhere from LKML.) [addendum] The point is: we are in a grey zone here. pcie_aspm=force is one extreme, the current default behaviour being the other one (explicit disabling!). The BIOS sets up something in-between and then says on inquiry: Never did I do anything! I'm not responsible!. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/7/273 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Biarch is actually only needed for libraries and support packages. Running native i386 application on x86_64 does not make much sense (third-party apps are another thing). I also like the option to compile, run, test, debug, etc. my own programs as 32 bit. That's why starting with 5.x there's not only the libs, but also the devel-packages. Biarch is at least to me a valuable feature. Anyway it's all there, just not in the ISOs it seems. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Les Mikesell wrote: Why not use a virtual machine for that and have a cleaner separation of the architectures? Biarch runs natively and therfore faster, it can use hardware-accelerated OpenGL, it is easier to setup and use, and it is fully supported by TUV. To me the separation of arcitectures is clean enough and you simply switch from 64-bit-mode to 32-bit-mode by typing 'linux32'. How can it be better with a virtual machine? Also consider for example a compute cluster. It will of course have the 64-bit version of CentOS installed, but some users may also want to run 32-Bit-Code on it (because it's faster in their case, because their code isn't 64-bit-clean yet, or because it's a 32-bit-only commercial code, whatever). -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Reindl Harald wrote: compilers and devel-packages should usually be seperated from working-computers and the compiled software packed as RPM in a dedicated vritual machine I'm using CentOS not only as a mail/web/etc. server, but also on my development workstation, on a compute server and on an in-house compute cluster. Compiling from source code in both 32- an 64-bit is a requirement of all users of these machines. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Reindl Harald wrote: compiling is not the problem Indeed. And thanks to biarch, this works ootb. there is ONE virtual machine neough for all users Biarch reduces this even to one less: none. It's obvioulsy the simpler solution. however i can not imagine a usecase for 32bit software these days I've given three real life examples. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Johnny Hughes wrote: There is a variable in yum.conf called multilib_policy ... The default in CentOS 5 is all ... the default in CentOS 6 is best. Ah, ok. Part of my playing around with 6.2 ist finding all the differences with respect to 5.x. ;) I can tell you that I would personally use something like mock to build or 32-bit items in at least a clean chroot when building/compiling 32 bit things on a 64-bit machine. But to each their own. I'm somehow confused with all of you loathing biarch so much. I can partly understand this from a packagers point of view, but as an end user? What you get at the end if you install both 32-bit and 64-bit packages is the 32-bit stuff in (basically) /usr/lib. Otherwise nothing changes. So the added stuff _is_ cleanly separated from the rest of the system. The kernel runs 32-bit and 64-bit programs anyway, gcc has '-m32' (you cannot even get rid of this), and all you you need to compile an run 32-bit programs is the extra stuff in /usr/lib. (The include/doc/etc. files which are in both packages _must_ be identical, that's checked.) All the Unix systems from the old days (Irix, Solaris, AIX, ...) had this long before Linux saw 64 bits. I like this feature very much, I and several others are using it on 5.x for years now, and nobody ever complained. The only problems I ever had were with you, Dear Packagers/Rebuilders. Sometimes you forgot the updated 32-bit package from the x64 updates repo, an in one case they were even really clashing in an unallowed way. Your fault again. :) So: what's the beef? -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Maybe we're talking about different things here. I'm definitely not talking about how to build a distribution. That's why I'm using your's on not running my own. I'm talking about the usefulness of biarch. Not in the sense of building packages for redistribution, especially not as RPMs. It's just for building code for one's own purposes. Take an arbitrary source package and run configure. It may fail even on CentOS 6.2. So what? Now, some run of configure fails on x86_64 in 32-bit mode. So what again? To build a distribution (large, but something of a well defined size!), you need a build environment, which works for everything in a well defined way. I only need an environment, in which I can make concrete things work easily, and that gives me the basics. For any piece of source code outside the core distribution, I'm not getting anything else anyway, not even in 64-bit mode. People, who write their own code, expect never anything else. And Biarch gives this to you equally well if you want to compile and run 32-bit programs on 64-bit. -Michael PS: This is (of course) not for building RPMs, but the configure scripts I was interested in so far, work with this in my ~/.tcshrc: --- ... alias linux32 linux32 $SHELL ... if ( `uname -m` == i686 ) then setenv CC gcc -m32 setenv CXX g++ -m32 setenv PKG_CONFIG_PATH /usr/lib/pkgconfig endif ... --- linux32 configure ... etc. ... And if you have your own Makefiles, just put in two or three '-m32' and your set. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Reindl Harald wrote: you need not to build a distribution to build clean packages in a clean build-envirnonment - this is simply in your own interest over the long and any quick dirty solution will eat your time later Please tell me in detail what ends up quick and dirty, when doing what is well established Unix practise since decades. This is nothing else than a simplified (but very convenient!) form of crosscompiling. -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
(Sorry to be a little talkative today, but I will easily refute everything.) Les Mikesell wrote: If you are moving binaries to any other machine, you are likely to have odd failures if you don't carefully control the libraries in the build environment. The linker doesn't and cannot link 64-bit objects to 32-bit libs. There's nothing else. Include files/etc. that are duplicated in 32-bit RPMs must be identical otherwise rpm doesn't install them together. If you aren't moving them to some other machine, then you rarely if ever need anything but the native libraries and development header set. That's the basic use case anyway: A user compiles his stuff on the frontend of the cluster and then submits his job. The libraries are useful for 3rd party binary apps, but why build a 32bit app yourself if you are going to run it in a 64bit environment? Three examples I have already given. To repeat one: a user has a code base that is not 64-bit clean? What am I to do? Tell him to f***, fix it myself for him, or what? I recall at least a couple of update conflicts/failure in the 5.x line caused by having 32bit versions of things installed on a 64bit host. Didn't those affect you? Also already answerded: They forgot to copy the 32-bit updates to the 64-bit updates repo. In one case there was a real bug. This happend only a couple of times so far in the 5.x time frame. So what? There where other bugs as well. And there is always the extra time wasted doing updates to libraries and programs you don't ever use. They update with everything else, there's no bandwidth limitation for these machines and the discs are big enough. (The 'everything' I described shortly elsewhere + a lot of extras totals to ~16 GB of disc space. That's nothing.) -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Reindl Harald wrote: it IS DIRTY because it does NOT remove obsoleted files and yes i have seen environemnets where as example mysql did not compile any longer as long all pieces of the old version were not deleted manually Hardly ever do I type 'make install'. I stick to Base/Updates/Epel/Elrepo. Only if it's really necessary do I install other stuff. And I normally put quite some effort into it: I produce proper RPMs. working on a modern OS beside the apckage-managment is just silly you have no clear dependencies, you have no migration-path, you have no clean rollback - you are doing a dirty job working so Well ... I'll tell the users of our cluster (which I happen to manage as an extra) that they cannot submit any jobs any longer because their stuff is not and cannot be installed as an RPM ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Reindl Harald wrote: on a clean environment $HOME does not contain software this is the apple-way having binaries running where your user have write-access and from the viewpoints of security and modern system-managment worst practice The three Federal Computing Centers in Germany (Juelich, Stuttgart, Munich -- with Stuttgart now hosting Germany's largest Supercomputer to date) all work in this way. How else should they? Most of the codes are developped by the users themselves, they are updated regularly -- and they do contain bugs (64-bit bugs, e.g.) ... Stuttgarts former top class machine is running CentOS 5. I never tried the 32-bit feature there myself, because my code _is_ 64-bit clean. But I would have been pissed if ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
Les Mikesell wrote: You _can_ cross-compile code for a whole bunch of different environments. That doesn't make it a particularly good idea, even if it does happen to be fairly easy in this one particular case. How many cases do you want to support? Exactly this one. The only relevant case. Fully supported by TUV for a good reason. And by the CentOS credo, it'll be here, too! It must be! It is! Whew! (And nobody has compiled the apps on my Android on his! Even if it's now possible to install Debian on Android!) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
John R Pierce wrote: who says he's building system packages?I got the impression he's building his own applications, stuff that typically runs in $HOME rather than /usr or whatever. Exactly. Wasn't that clear from the very beginning? -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
I'm experimenting with 6.2 now. Things seem to be really great so far! Distribution closure is one of my favourite pets. So I tried to install everything. I found only one problem, but that's another (minor) thing. But I found almost nothing under /usr/lib. So, Biarch is really dead? Funny! A couple of years back, I finally opted for CentOS instead of Debian just because of Biarch ... I'm getting real old ... -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is Biarch with 6.x now dead?
nope. its actually quite a major pain to manage.. you forgot to mention what you installed, how you did it and what you expected V/s achieved I have installed all the packages from the two x86_64 DVDs with (eventually): yum install --exclude=ovirt\* \* I'm not using any internet-based repos for now, because of limited bandwidth at home. I haven't touched 6.x before 6.2 and just thought it would be as in 5.x (biarch wise). With 6.2 everything on my X301 semms to be working much better or at least as good as in 5.7. I will slowly, carefully, and thankfully play with your Christmas present in the next two weeks. :) -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?
... I understand now ... No, you don't. is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue receiving security updates? It's strictly linear and one-dimensional. Point releases only mark a specific point in time, where you get a little bit more, e.g. additional drivers, an optional new version of samba, etc. You always type 'yum update' and go ahead. Nothing else. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how to upgrade gtk on centos 4.8
Tommy Zong wrote: My centos is 4.8 while I need gtk 2.8 or later. How to upgrade GTK? You can't without breaking everything. But you can install an alternative version alongside and make sure that only the programs that need it are using it (that means you _can't_ just install to /usr/local). RH sometimes does this too. E.g. there are official packages for evolution 2.8 in the base repo: evolution28-2.8.0-61.el4.x86_64 evolution28-atk-1.12.2-4.el4.x86_64 evolution28-atk-devel-1.12.2-4.el4.x86_64 evolution28-cairo-1.2.4-6.el4.x86_64 evolution28-cairo-devel-1.2.4-6.el4.x86_64 evolution28-devel-2.8.0-61.el4.x86_64 evolution28-evolution-connector-2.8.0-16.el4.x86_64 evolution28-evolution-data-server-1.8.0-37.el4_7.2.x86_64 evolution28-evolution-data-server-devel-1.8.0-37.el4_7.2.x86_64 evolution28-glib2-2.12.3-6.el4.x86_64 evolution28-glib2-devel-2.12.3-6.el4.x86_64 evolution28-gtk2-2.10.4-25.el4.x86_64 evolution28-gtk2-devel-2.10.4-25.el4.x86_64 evolution28-gtkhtml3-3.12.0-11.el4.x86_64 evolution28-gtkhtml3-devel-3.12.0-11.el4.x86_64 evolution28-libsoup-2.2.98-5.el4.1.x86_64 evolution28-libsoup-devel-2.2.98-5.el4.1.x86_64 evolution28-pango-1.14.9-13.el4_8.x86_64 evolution28-pango-devel-1.14.9-13.el4_8.x86_64 As you can see, devel packages are even included. Your best bet is to install all the above (includes gtk 2.10) and then compile your stuff with something like env PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/evolution28/lib64/pkgconfig:/usr/lib64/pkgconfig LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/evolution28/lib64 ./configure Hope this helps, -Michael ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
