On Friday, March 25, 2011 09:55:34 pm Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I'm speaking up for our CentOS repackagers here. That kind of
bootstrapping takes cycles and practice, and double checking. In
theory, they could. Our CentOS rebuilders have exposed a few
dependencies for which the SRPM's are not
On 3/26/11 12:44 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Les, the upstream source RPMs aren't even the source source for the
upstream build; SRPMS are just a by product of the build of the binaries from
source in an SCM (managed by Red Hat's koji), and in theory, given the same
identical environment that
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/11 12:44 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Les, the upstream source RPMs aren't even the source source for the
upstream build; SRPMS are just a by product of the build of the binaries
from source in an SCM (managed by
On Saturday, March 26, 2011 02:53:19 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
Does an
rpmbuild --rebuild of one of the packages in question on a stock RH system
create a binary that would fail the CentOS QA?
This is the core of the question. As I don't have an RHEL 6 system available
to try, I can't
On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
There is no mis-match.
___
CentOS mailing
On 3/25/2011 4:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
There is no mis-match.
I thought the issue
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/2011 4:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what
On 3/25/2011 5:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
There is no mis-match.
I thought the issue causing the delays is that rebuilding
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/2011 5:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that
matched
their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
There
On 3/25/11 6:31 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
One has to be cautious about the bootstrap environment, to make sure
that the libraries available in your mock or other build
environments are the same libraries. Red Hat seems to be very, very
good about this.
It is not that they are good, they
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/25/11 6:31 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
One has to be cautious about the bootstrap environment, to make sure
that the libraries available in your mock or other build
environments are the same libraries. Red Hat
Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released
their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either.
On the other hand, unlike CentOS, Scientific Linux (SL) is backporting
5.6 security fixes. Indeed, all of the security issues CentOS 5.5 has
right now aren't in SL.
SL is a fine product
On 23/03/11 03:41, 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
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:46AM +, Ned Slider wrote:
I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website:
Trimmed for brevity.
This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release.
The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the norm.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme
strenholme.use...@gmail.com wrote:
As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working
hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel
people posting here talking about how unprofessional CentOS is acting
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme
strenholme.use...@gmail.com wrote:
As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working
hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel
people
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
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the
SL notes on the srpms that don't build with the listed
dependencies as shipped - and they aren't being picky about
the library linkages matching the RH binaries like CentOS
is.
If the
On 3/23/2011 10:40 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
Sometimes looking at the list and the posts, I feel like I am
watching a group of nuns, talking (speculating) about the life
issues of Las Vegas showgirls
The showgirls are picky about who they let under the covers. So I
suppose we have to wait for
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
It is just hard for an outsider to reconcile the statements about the
build process not needing any changes or more resources with the lack of
a target time. Or that binary compatibility is the critical thing with
the distribution becoming
On 03/20/2011 05:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
competition with
RH
for RH and
On 03/21/2011 07:08 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Matthew Feinberg matt...@choopa.com wrote:
I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
Right. The php53 package is in the upstream
On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/20/2011 05:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in
On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like
RHEL.
So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL
might be more similar in tool set
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like
RHEL.
So I thought instead of going
On 3/22/11 8:07 PM, William Hooper wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:18:31PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes
on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped
- and they aren't being picky about the library linkages matching the
RH binaries like
On 03/22/2011 08:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/22/11 8:07 PM, William Hooper wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
production OS, he
On 3/22/11 8:23 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:18:31PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes
on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped
- and they aren't being picky about the library
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,
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
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
On Mon, March 21, 2011 5:51 am, Dag Wieers wrote:
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
On Mon, March 21, 2011 5:51 am, Dag Wieers wrote:
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
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Matthew Feinberg matt...@choopa.com wrote:
I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
Right. The php53 package is in the upstream vendor's updates, all of
which are held up for
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.
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc comp...@hotrodpc.com wrote:
RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config files
and slightly different locations for some config files.
It's not like one is a drop in replacement for the other, so it doesn't make
sense to me
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
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc comp...@hotrodpc.com wrote:
RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config
files
and slightly different locations for some config files.
It's not like one is a drop in replacement for the other, so it doesn't
make
sense to
Did we read the same page? When you buy Novell (SUSE) support for RedHat
EL, you will still run your original RedHat EL installation but then
update packages rebuilt by Novell. Technically that's the same like adding
the CentOS repo config to your RedHat installation and then install all
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Drew wrote:
Most likely because of relative cost and/or perceived value of SLES vs RHEL?
Novell is essentially offering to help you while you switch existing
kit over to SLES. If you're already paying for a RHEL subscription,
Novell's offer may have a lower cost or offer
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Drew drew@gmail.com wrote:
Did we read the same page? When you buy Novell (SUSE) support for RedHat
EL, you will still run your original RedHat EL installation but then
update packages rebuilt by Novell. Technically that's the same like adding
the CentOS
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Simon Matter simon.mat...@invoca.ch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc comp...@hotrodpc.com wrote:
RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config
files
and slightly different locations for some config files.
It's not
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.
When I said opensuse, I was referring to suse. Sorry.
The problem I have is that RHEL and
Please, folks -- These are just not CentOS issues -- and the
commercial player chess-games and interplay not even vaguely
related to the subject matter which started this thread.
Please take this elsewhere
Sorry, you're right.
___
CentOS mailing
Am 21.03.2011 15:34, schrieb compdoc:
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
There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
in EPEL 5 components. In particular, the php53 package is now
necessary for the drupal6 EPEL components, due to the long out of
date PHP 5.1 in the default
On 20/03/11 15:23, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
in EPEL 5 components. In particular, the php53 package is now
necessary for the drupal6 EPEL components, due
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
in EPEL 5 components.
Sad that -- that the dependent partial Red Hat adjunct project
is not compatible
The unpleasantness of reading continual criticism, from those
who will not do the minimal local rebuilds, to use the
packages from a project not affiliated with the CentOS
project, has pretty effectively driven the CentOS core
developers away from this mailing list
...
If a person
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Александр Кириллов wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2011-03-18-how-to-lose-a-client_N.htm
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or needed, PLEASE
http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2011-03-18-how-to-lose-a-client_N.htm
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
TANSTAAFL
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
in EPEL 5 components.
Sad that
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2011-03-18-how-to-lose-a-client_N.htm
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Александр Кириллов wrote:
TANSTAAFL
... long overdue free lunch
I get it -- you dont (or choose not to) understand the written
word
-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
TANSTAAFL
... long overdue free lunch
I get it -- you dont (or choose not to) understand the written
word
Yeah, the picture's pretty bleak. The world's climates are changing,
the mammals are taking over, and we all have a brain about the size of a
walnut.
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
TANSTAAFL
And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer
from
Oracle
this project is
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 20:30 +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
The point is it's probably as easy to lose a community if this still
matters to the core CentOS team.
Centos offers free and very reliable Linux with free and very reliable
updates.
The people providing this free service are
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
binaries for free.
Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
is better to pay for real
RH instead of oracle linux..
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:30:41PM +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer from
Oracle
this project is probably dead in the water.
Hahahaha.
Thanks for the chuckle. Do you have an encore performance
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
binaries for free.
Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
is better
Le 20/03/2011 19:36, Always Learning a écrit :
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 20:30 +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
The point is it's probably as easy to lose a community if this still
matters to the core CentOS team.
Centos offers free and very reliable Linux with free and very reliable
updates.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
But when the core team refuse to give any update (no news) at all (black
out), since more than one week, I consider this as even less reliable...
Stop this nonsense, would you? We rehash this same crap every
few
But when the core team refuse to give any update (no news) at all
(black
out), since more than one week, I consider this as even less
reliable...
Stop this nonsense, would you? We rehash this same crap every
few weeks and it's ridiculous.
And this same crap it is.
Александр Кириллов wrote:
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
TANSTAAFL
And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer
from
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
binaries for free.
Yes, but patches (support) cost money,
Le 20/03/2011 21:00, Alain Péan a écrit :
With no updates since more than three months (for 5.6)
Correction : more than two months...
Alain
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers
installable
On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based
It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried opensuse for
the first time and I really like it.
I understand the need for stability, but for what I do, having the newest
(stable) kernel and packages has a greater benefit.
Kernel
On Mar 20, 2011, at 4:00 PM, compdoc wrote:
It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried
opensuse for
the first time and I really like it.
Yes, PVOPS and over all better Xen tools is a great reason to use
OpenSuse.
On 3/20/2011 7:00 PM, compdoc wrote:
It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried opensuse for
the first time and I really like it.
I understand the need for stability, but for what I do, having the newest
(stable) kernel and
to which news are you referring about ubuntu-wise?
I meant recent redhat news about the change in how it will deliver code to
the community. They mentioned opensuse as being a competitor, I believe.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 3/20/2011 7:11 PM, compdoc wrote:
to which news are you referring about ubuntu-wise?
I meant recent redhat news about the change in how it will deliver code to
the community. They mentioned opensuse as being a competitor, I believe.
___
their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
Somehow a story led me to try opensuse. Sorry, don't know which it was that
I read.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 3/20/2011 7:29 PM, compdoc wrote:
their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
Somehow a story led me to try opensuse. Sorry, don't know which it was that
I read.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 3/20/11 6:59 PM, William Warren wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
oh they mentioned opensuse as part of the kernel patch obfuscation issue
that was raised..that's probably where opensuse got your attention..but
their mention of opensuse is jsut to hide the fact their
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
On 3/20/2011 10:44 PM, 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
I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
This is out of the drupal6-date.spec file
Requires: drupal6 = 6.0, drupal6-cck, php = 5.2
You can get php52 or php53 from the IUS repository.
Install the IUS repo from
80 matches
Mail list logo
