On 12/29/2015 02:42 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 12/28/2015 01:37 PM, S A wrote:
Hi,
I was out for holiday last week and came back to my SL 7.1 desktop
needing a slew of updates. I had been running
VirtualBox-5.0-5.0.10_104061_el7-1.x86_64 against
kernel-3.10.0-229.14.1.el7.x86_64 with out issue. After installing
the latest kernel mentioned by Etienne, and attempting to rebuild
the vboxdrv modules, I had similar failures. Afterward, I attempted
to upgrade to VirtualBox-5.0-5.0.12_104815_el7-1.x86_64, I
discovered the libdevmapper issue noted in the previous post which
prevented the newer version from installing.
It seems that there is a VirtualBox bug filed against the EL7.2
3.10.0-327 kernel noted here:
https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/14866 which may be causing the
issues you are encountering. Unfortunately, the testing build for
EL7:
https://www.virtualbox.org/download/testcase/VirtualBox-5.0-5.0.11_104721_el7-1.x86_64.rpm,
does not install due to the same libdevmapper issue. I had hoped
maybe the devmapper issue was introduced in builds between the
latest testbuild and the release build for 5.0.12, no such luck.
I have device-mapper-libs-1.02.93-3.el7_1.1.x86_64 installed, but it
seems that the VirtualBox package is calling for
device-mapper-libs-1.02.97, which doesn't seem to be available for
SL7. The CentOS and Oracle Linux public yum repo's latest version
is device-mapper-libs-1.02.107-5.el7.x86_64. Is that in the
pipeline for release to SL7 soon?
Thanks!
I am confused. As I thought I understood the current EL situation, Red
Hat owns CentOS and distributes EL full source, per GPL, Linux, etc.,
licenses, through CentOS for all non-RH rebuilds (e.g., Oracle) to use
(sans Red Hat logos, services, etc.). In this case, two questions:
(1) Is Fermilab/CERN not funded well enough to have the same
rebuliding/packaging resources as Oracle just to rebuild from the RH
CentOS sources, and thus is delayed in production binary (RPM) release
compared to Oracle? Both Fermilab and CERN are funded through their
respective governments that support fundamental research.
CERN is NOT involved in SL 7 .
(2) If (1) is true, during the interval before the "current" RH
production release is a SL release, can one simply use the CentOS or
Oracle RPMs (e.g., in this case,
device-mapper-libs-1.02.107-5.el7.x86_64.rpm) to maintain compatibility
with Oracle licensed-for-free products (e.g., VirtualBox)?
Yasha Karant
device-mapper-libs-1.02.107-5.el7.x86_64.rpm is available via the
"rolling" repo now.
--
Connie J. Sieh
Computing Services Specialist III
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 8531 office
http://www.fnal.gov
[email protected]
I did not know that CERN had stopped in the extra-CERN SL work -- was SL
6 the last "public" joint Fermilab-CERN "supported" release? Is CERN
still using EL (presumably 7) internally, or has CERN switch to
something else (e.g., SuSE)?
May I assume from your response that Fermilab currently is not funded
well enough to bring out RHEL production releases (presumably via RedHat
owned CentOS) as rapidly as, say, Oracle? Presumably, Oracle also is
forced to use the CentOS source as Red Hat regards Oracle as a
competitor, particularly because, unlike SL, Oracle claims to offer the
same "quality" support-for-fee that Red Hat claims, providing the same
sort of "cradle to grave" support that many IT departments require. (As
an academic research unit, we are "self-supporting"). For those of us
in the USA, would it help SL staffing to attempt to get earmarked
funding through Congress?
Regards,
Yasha Karant
