Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:53 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/15/11 7:40 PM, Michel Donais wrote: Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. Full installs are always recommended between major versions. Thank's all for the advise; but is there any easy way to install a newer version while keeping all configuration changes that have been made on a previous one as for 'sendmail', 'sshd.conf','firewalls', etc... have all your configuration under a change management system, with an at least semi-automated installation procedure, such as kickstart. +1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Dag's RHEL Rebuild Project.
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 22:23 -0400, Peter A wrote: On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:12:15 PM Antaryami Khuda wrote: I see um twitter dag's want to start his own RHEL rebuild. Dag how much monies you do need? I make contribution of 5.000 rupee if other join. Ant This is really disrespectful to talk about on here. The devs spent a ton of their spare time to develop centos, last thing you should talk about is starting competing projects... Peter. You have a point, but dammit - The world is changing. People expect access to information when they hit the internet. As far as I see it, if Dag wants to start his own project, he has my support, and buckets of people from the RPM using world. CentOS is an amazing project - but the truth is CentOS has it's own objective, which what I understand is to maintain 100% binary compatibility with RHEL. I love this objective, but to be honest, as people who use open source software, we above others should really understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If Dag can get 100% binary compatibility with an open build process that others can follow easily and contribute to, you can bet your first born child that I will be there! And to be honest - without competition, without urgency, where is the motivation? My final point is, does it really matter who gets us to the goal of 100% binary compatibility? I see that as a challenge. I really wish I had the knowledge to get going on this - It's a noble goal, and that goal, rather than the methods used to achieve it should take priority. We should get as many people on this as possible. HEY ORACLE! We know you've been riding on RHEL all these years, get some of your devs to give some free time dammit! :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] A round of applause!
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 09:39 -0700, Chuck Munro wrote: Hello All, Just a short note to add my vote for a HUGE round of applause to the CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door. I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all just works. This is one of the main reasons we love CentOS ... continue.. None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who don't appreciate the effort, and who waste the team's time trying to respond. I agree, and I'm partly responsible for flaming some of these threads - Hence why after all the new releases, maybe we could have a shake up - spare the DEVS from giving updates, and have a few other guys as points of contact on the list *hint* RedHat's move to defend their support business against the freeloading distro vendors (we all know who those sharks are!) wasn't aimed at CentOS, but it has significantly increased the workload the team faces. What move did Redhat make? This interests me, do you have a link? Let's be patient and let them get the job done. Kudos to the CentOS team! Chuck Thank You, and Good Luck Chuck :) hehe ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how is binary compatibility determined?
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 14:47 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Dvorkin, Asya dvork...@umdnj.edu wrote: Thanks Keith, good question, that should have been on my list of Questions to ask about CentOS building process, and thanks to Akemi for a quick answer :) Given that its answered in a FAQ one could argue that it was not a good question. You know, there is a famous saying.. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all. Yes, and not to mention the giant warning on the top of that page: Comment from Karanbir Singh: Just want to point out that CentOS does not use anything from that page - and details / scripts on that page have nothing to do with the CentOS process. // Brian Mathis Okay, I'm getting a touch confused here. Are you saying that this page is a red herring?? Because if it is irrelevant, then does anyone have an issue if that page gets nuked? What's the point if it's not helpful? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS ToDo Item - For the Wiki - Hosting Control Panels - Help?
Dear List, I've taken a look at the TODO page http://wiki.centos.org/ToDo and I've picked something at random to ask a question about and see if we can get it done! Add page for Hosting control panels - we seem to get a lot of people asking about them I spotted this quote - What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that people want instructions on how to install some sort of web based admin panel? Or that they want one to be part of the distro as standard? RHEL doesn't have one (AFAIK) - so, I'm a bit lost as to what this means. Either way, our TODO page is too long, and I'm determined to blank it out. My aim, is to get some traction on this, so we can remove it from the ToDo page. So, I guess we can start with a clear definition of the requirement, and then move on from there. Discuss :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS ToDo Item - For the Wiki - Hosting Control Panels - Help?
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:31 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 04/09/2011 10:26 AM, Mister IT Guru wrote: Dear List, I've taken a look at the TODO page http://wiki.centos.org/ToDo and I've picked something at random to ask a question about and see if we can get it done! Just as a warning : that page is very very out of date. A ToDo list, drawn up today would easily be 5 times longer and might not actually include much from that page. Unfortunately, a fair bit of content in the Wiki is in such a state - if you want, how about helping find this stale content and consolidating it. - KB Hmm... I guess that is a hint. That took all of half an hour for the little morsal i nibbled to turn into the phrase, Bit off more than I can chew! Okay, well facing this new challenge, I have a feeling that the ToDo page on the wiki needs updating, as I have it on clear authority that it could easily be 5 times longer, and most of the tasks currently existing may not even be needed. Can I assume that at least this page about wiki editing http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Wiki/Editing is up to date? I ask to prompt others to step up and help clean the wiki as this seems to be needed. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] New CentOS ToDo Page Required
Due to recent list traffic, it seems that we need to have a new todo list! I propose the following 1) Nuke current todo page 2) Create new todo page 3) Clear out ancient todo items a) Get rid of the items that are no longer relevant b) Reword those that are 4) Update Wiki a) Gasp as the magnitude at the job b) Inject coffee, add ego - write mini todo and propose to list c) Expand on b) till the list stops quibbling d) Find volunteers, and get cracking on Updating the wiki Any ideas? Anyone want to comment? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] New CentOS ToDo Page Required
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:32 +0100, Ned Slider wrote: On 09/04/11 11:36, Mister IT Guru wrote: Due to recent list traffic, it seems that we need to have a new todo list! I propose the following 1) Nuke current todo page 2) Create new todo page 3) Clear out ancient todo items a) Get rid of the items that are no longer relevant b) Reword those that are 4) Update Wiki a) Gasp as the magnitude at the job b) Inject coffee, add ego - write mini todo and propose to list c) Expand on b) till the list stops quibbling d) Find volunteers, and get cracking on Updating the wiki Any ideas? Anyone want to comment? I'm not sure this is the correct list for this (being Wiki related), or at the very least this should be CCd to the centos-docs list too. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I didn't even know that there was such a list, I will introduce myself over there! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how is binary compatibility determined?
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 08:52 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: On Saturday, April 09, 2011 05:32:34 AM Karanbir Singh wrote: I just wanted to make sure that people realise that while the process on that page will get you to where one needs to be, the scripts etc are not what we use in the centos buildsystem. And that's a more useful statement than the quote that's up on that page now. After 6.0 is out if you, Johnny, Tru, or whomever would be so kind as to update the publicly accessible scripts I'm sure many folk would be appreciative. So we now have C4.9 and C5.6 out; two down, one to go. Good progress, even if it did take a bit of time. Does this deserve to be a new thread, seems we're talking more about the build system/mechanisms used to build rpms, and that's a thread I would really like to follow ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how is binary compatibility determined?
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 08:58 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: Hi all! We've seen quite a few references on the list to 100% binary compatibility with upstream. What I am curious about is, how precisely is this determined? All the ways I can think of for comparing how two systems might work seem flawed in some way (e.g., using some sort of checksum; unit testing; verifying build parameters). I did some searches both at centos.org and google, but couldn't find anything specific about the test(s) used to determine compatibility. In this FAQ: http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General/RebuildReleaseProcess Once built ... we use the tmverifyrpms against it from here: http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/ Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Thanks Keith, good question, that should have been on my list of Questions to ask about CentOS building process, and thanks to Akemi for a quick answer :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 09:53 -0700, David Brian Chait wrote: All, As much as I hate to ask, how is this project coming along? We are approaching the 4 month post-release point… -David This reply is in no way directed at you personally David, I just picked your message to reply to :) Such a simple statement, and yet so much list traffic!! I agree people should stop asking about when 6 will be ready. Also, stop asking about 5.6 and 4.9? *please correct my post if I'm wrong* So many people interested in this 'release' date of an essentially free product. I think FOSS is unique in this aspect that it is an actual working product with a release date, and no actual income from the product. If I'm getting something free, I'm not going to pressure the dude who's giving it to me, because at any time, he can tell me to take a running jump! If CentOS was a film, then hold the developers to account. If it is a console game, the same. But it is NOT. It is FOSS. Just be happy you have a pretty new version in your hands as it is. If that still isn't good enough for you, then Use the Source Duke Grab LFS ebook as a jump of point, and get cracking, or pay RHEL for a frikkin' subscription and get all the latest binaries you want. Personally I see all this chatter as people who wish to help with the reverse engineer process that out very generous devs are currently struggling through! Your email address is in the public domain, we can contact you with tasks from the TODO list, and then once you've started to give your free time to that, maybe, just maybe you'll have earned the right to say ... When is it going to be ready! Until then, be happy with the free goodness that is CentOS. By the way, there is nothing stopping you compiling the latest and greatest code into the apps you need. After all, the skills that the devs are using - should every good SysAdmin and Linux Head be able to at least do something similar? At the end of the day as the devs of this, and many other FOSS projects say, It'll be ready when it's frikkin' ready! hehe! And my final point *sorry, I had a liquid lunch, and feeling quite passionate about my favourite OS* What the hell is so special about CentOS 6? The packages that are contained within are available to everyone... already. Whatever feature you could possibly ask for, you can go an get yourself. If you are the type of person that likes bleeding edge on your server, then maybe CentOS is not for you. Fedora, and Ubuntu may suit you better. -- Mister IT Guru Bloghttp://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Twitter @misteritguru Follow me, I follow you - it's only fair ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Migrating standalone systems to KVM
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 21:38 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 05:41 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote: I haven't tried it, but in theory you could take a clonezilla image of the physical machine and restore it to a KVM disk image: Just create the initial virtual drives at least as large as the originals, boot clonezilla in the VM and restore from the images. That's an excellent idea! I didn't consider it when I was trying to figure out how to migrate a physical CentOS 5 server to a KVM. I will try this just for shits and giggles. Regards, Ranbir This is pretty awesome for linux boxen, but just so that you know, it'll not be as straight forward for a windows box! That puppy there is an adventure in itself. But just to note - Did the migration go smoothly? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:33 +0100, 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. Ah! I like the sound of this. This can be a start. What I understand by this, is adopt a package, test it out, and update the community via wiki, hanging in the IRC channels and answering questions on the mailing list. What about having some users adopt a package, say maybe in teams of 3 with different responsibilities. So for example, if someone 'adopts' package foo - two others should join in and they can split the load between them, so one guy can be in charge of watching the list, and giving a 'nudge' offlist to the 'parent' of foo, another can post twitter updates, or list announcments to a timetable - It's just an idea, but i believe with a touch of visibility, to the workload on a package level will shut up everyone, and change the argument from when will it be READY, to DAMN we gots loads of work to do to help out to get it READY. We can then even really measure of well the community can get new releases out the door. We can eventually streamline the process, come on, don't we consider ourselves kick ass? Can't we use something like launchpad? There *must* be some collaborative tools that we can leverage, after all, they all run on CENTOS do they not!? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Door not hitting me on my way out
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 18:03 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote: On Monday 04 April 2011 12:25:06 Mister IT Guru wrote: The one thing I would love to be able to contribute my time to is helping test new code, and get it out the door so guys on the street can test it out. Before you get flamed-off by people who are already extremely pissed by previous infinity of discussions on this topic, let me try to summarize the answers to your questions, collected from all previous flames that were going on for the past three months. ;-) Hopefully, my answer could prevent yet another flame starting up... :-) Also, I am not a developer of CentOS (or of anything else) myself, but just an ordinary user. So I am just going to rehash and summarize what I have read from more knowledgeable people on this list. Maybe it's my curiosity, but my brain tells me that Fedora is the forerunner for RHEL. And the Fedora code is out there. CentOS is built from the RHEL code, with all RHEL specific items removed. Ergo - If I replicate the build environment on some of my machines, Herein lies the main problem: *there* *is* *no* *build* *environment* yet. In other words --- the Fedora environment is far too big/generic/unsuitable/whatever (am I right here?), and RedHat is not interested in giving details about their build environment. I think I am beginning to understand. No build environment? *applauds the CentOS devs* Wait does this mean that you use trial and improvement, as you attempt to get to 100% binary compatibility? Awesome If this is the case, surely that must take a lot of man power? Dev guys - Ask the list for ten minions to do your bidding. I am prepared to become a minion, it would really help if more people had your back when it comes to RHEL doing updates etc. You won't even need to remind the list, you got minions for that! So the main problem that CentOS team has to solve with each major release is to construct a build environment that will produce binaries that are bit-by- bit equivalent to official RHEL (up to trademarks, branding and some other stuff). Okay - This makes sense. Do we have a flow chart somewhere online that details this process? Where can assistance be provided? If the CentOS devs can give me a spec on thier build environment, I'm sure I could devise a way to allow others to duplicate the same environment in KVM and help. From my naive understanding, this boils down to the proper order in which packages are supposed to be built. There is more than one possible ordering, and only one will give binary equivalent set of packages. A lot of coffee required here! Woah, serious dev guys, is the workload to this degree? Hey Devs, we *OWE* you! we owe you BIG time, put us to work dammit! I am probably oversimplifying things, but it roughly goes as follows: 1) start from some build environment 2) compile the whole distro 3) compare the result bit-by-bit with RHEL binaries 4) if it matches you're done; if it doesn't match, modify the build environment and go back to 1). This is a major achievement for the CentOS devs. Can't we share our spare cycles, and build some sort of bastardised deep blue? Crank together our own grid! *maybe when we hit CentOS 9 or so we will be, here's hoping!* AFAIU, the CentOS devs are currently in the above loop. Once they are done, testing will begin and CentOS 6 will probably be released shortly thereafter. However, nobody knows how much time is it going to take to finish the loop. Not even the devs can estimate that, so better don't ask them! ;-) Time, time time! I don't care how long it takes, so long as it gets done! I have enough faith in previous CentOS builds to be able to wait until the next one is ready. Anyway, I *never* update my production servers until my test rigs are rock solid, and there is at least talk of another update :) I hope that this clears up some things. (KVM and XEN both running riot all over my systems, but not doing anything useful for me! :( ), then surley I should be able to get some postive results, and be able to contrib that back to the guys upstream. That's what my brain tells me. I don't mind running build environments, or test environments or whatever - I guess what I'm saying is GIMME SOME OF YOUR WORKLOAD!! As should be obvious from above, the problem is not in the workload. It's about reverse-engineering the build environment. More computing power (or manpower for that matter) will not help in a significant way. Woah, what a way to crush my hopes of a grid of global CentOS systems kicking IBM in the nuts. So to further my understanding, just so that we can maintain binary compatibility with RHEL, the CentOS devs have to hit on by chance a build environment that produces the same output as the equivalent RHEL version. In general it could help, but the devs need to invest some serious time to train you to do
Re: [CentOS] Door not hitting me on my way out
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:31 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: 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 :) Okay, so Nico is a bit upset. I can't say I blame him - But he did raise a point and make me think about something. Now, if I'm wrong, flame the crap out of me, I have very good filter-foo ! The one thing I would love to be able to contribute my time to is helping test new code, and get it out the door so guys on the street can test it out. Maybe it's my curiosity, but my brain tells me that Fedora is the forerunner for RHEL. And the Fedora code is out there. CentOS is built from the RHEL code, with all RHEL specific items removed. Ergo - If I replicate the build environment on some of my machines, (KVM and XEN both running riot all over my systems, but not doing anything useful for me! :( ), then surley I should be able to get some postive results, and be able to contrib that back to the guys upstream. That's what my brain tells me. I don't mind running build environments, or test environments or whatever - I guess what I'm saying is GIMME SOME OF YOUR WORKLOAD!! Or at least make it easy for other bored sysads to help you out. All this spare processing power and capable guys and girls eager to support our distro of choice to get the best bleeding edge stable code. It's almost like following a football team! How DARE debian get ahead of us! Gentoo!? Who the bleeding hell do you think you are!? Don't you know CENTOS is in the HOUSE!? *calms down* Excuse my excitement. I could edit this email before I hit send, but then you guys wouldn't really know how I feel towards CentOS. How can the average guy get involved with testing, can we build the same environments as you guys? Do you have a standard way of operating that maybe some of us could learn, and contribute? Is it out there already out there and documented? How can we get our hands dirty? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Troubles for an non-IT beginner
On 16/01/2011 16:33, JohnS wrote: On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 10:55 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: You can ignore md5 for now - they are just for verifying that the file you've downloaded has not been modified. You should not tell him to ignore it but tell him how to use it and what it is for. md5sum my.iso Validate the ISO Image and compare it against the checksum on the down load site. If the checksum is wrong trash the ISO and fetch another. +1 I was about to explain this, but as usual, someone beat me to it :) John ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 5.6 is out
On 13/01/2011 21:45, Daniel Heitmann wrote: On 13.01.2011, at 22:34, Ray Van Dolson wrote: You should probably give RH a call with your questions, or try this mailing list: Or wait a few more weeks for CentOS 6, if it's a money-issue. I assumed that this would be the case! Made me realise how much faith I have in the CentOS volunteers. Every time I've heard of a RHEL release, I brace myself and think WooHoo - CentOS in three months! Is this how other CentOS users feel when they hear a RHEL announcement? -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 13:20, Kwan Lowe wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Mister IT Gurumisteritg...@gmx.com wrote: At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? I would really like to automate this, so that I can keep track of the RPMS's and build them into my own future repo. (That's another project, I'm sure I'll come to the list for that one!) Shouldn't be any problems doing it. With the right environment variables you can build any architecture on any other. I.e., I've built ARM and MIPS under x86 before. Tricky, but certainly doable. At least I know now for sure that it is doable! Great - Well, I guess I better start planning on learning Mock - although I am very open to hearing best practice methods of compiling software cross architecture, if anyone has a blog or website I'd give it a shot. -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 13:33, Ryan Wagoner wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Mister IT Gurumisteritg...@gmx.com wrote: I have an x86_64 box running Xen, so a paravirtualised guest has just been ordered for building a Mock Environment. I'm going to have to run to Google to learn more in the short space of time I have open to me, you guys seems to be nudging me in the right direction. Mock is easy to use. You can install it with yum install mock. You will want to set the packager and dist variables in /etc/mock/centos-5-arch.cfg. As far as building SRPMS the command is as simple as For i386 on a x86_64 box setarch i386 mock -r centos-5-i386.cfg --resultdir=/home/yourhomedir/mock/ package.srpm For x86_64 mock -r centos-5-x86_64.cfg --resultdir=/home/yourhomedir/mock/ package.srpm Ryan This is good news indeed! Okay, I'm going to build my VM for building this stuff - I'll be back on the list with any questions as I go through this. -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 5.6 is out
On 14/01/2011 15:11, Robert Spangler wrote: On Friday 14 January 2011 05:45, Mister IT Guru wrote: On 13/01/2011 21:45, Daniel Heitmann wrote: On 13.01.2011, at 22:34, Ray Van Dolson wrote: You should probably give RH a call with your questions, or try this mailing list: Or wait a few more weeks for CentOS 6, if it's a money-issue. I assumed that this would be the case! Made me realise how much faith I have in the CentOS volunteers. Every time I've heard of a RHEL release, I brace myself and think WooHoo - CentOS in three months! Is this how other CentOS users feel when they hear a RHEL announcement? NO! This is a volunteer effort. You cannot expect them to have the newest release out days after it is announced. There is work that needs to be done before they can release the OS as CentOS. They do what they can when they can. After all it s free so why complain? I have 0 complaints with CentOS - even the complaints I do have are not really complaints, just me being greedy and fickle. CentOS is, for all intents and purposes, an Enterprise grade product, I salute you guys and girls, who work on it. You could always learn how to help them get the newest release out there if time is such an important issue. For the record, I do completely understand that this is a volunteer effort, as I am sure many others have done since the beginning. Time to me, is not an important issue, I can wait for the work to be done, but taking into the account the fact that I'm taking, and not giving, I should have taken the stance that you took, and let people know that this is a volunteer effort. That said ... WOOHOO - CentOS in three months! I am free to be happy that there are people out there who are spending their free time, using their knowledge and expertise just to help me do my job better. I say Thank You to the volunteers, you make my life so much easier, and your top class work gives me the confidence to deploy CentOS, not only across all our internal linux machines, but our colo facility as well, *and* all our clients. Thank You again, because of your work, I am able to sleep at night not worrying about new system installs, or anything to do with CentOS actually. Your work is top class! -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 5.6 is out
On 14/01/2011 15:35, Eero Volotinen wrote: 2011/1/14 Brunner, Brian T.bbrun...@gai-tronics.com: Is this how other CentOS users feel when they hear a RHEL announcement? +1 5.5 broke my machine at home, I don't have a bootable kernel currently (all versions hang starting udev, or hit a kernel panic starting udev). So a 5.6 or 6.0 DVD is the pill I'm waiting for. Please, file bug report to upstream .. See! this is why I love open source! Would you have got a response that quick from M$!? Unless you paid them your first born child? -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 5.6 is out
On 14/01/2011 16:14, Cia Watson wrote: On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:11:20 -0500 Robert Spanglermli...@zoominternet.net wrote: On Friday 14 January 2011 05:45, Mister IT Guru wrote: I assumed that this would be the case! Made me realise how much faith I have in the CentOS volunteers. Every time I've heard of a RHEL release, I brace myself and think WooHoo - CentOS in three months! Is this how other CentOS users feel when they hear a RHEL announcement? NO! This is a volunteer effort. You cannot expect them to have the newest release out days after it is announced. There is work that needs to be done before they can release the OS as CentOS. They do what they can when they can. After all it s free so why complain? You could always learn how to help them get the newest release out there if time is such an important issue. He did say 'CentOS in three months', and given that as I recall 5.3 to 5.4 took 2 months and 5.4 to 5.5 took about the same amount of time, 3 months hopefully isn't unrealistic? If it is, maybe someone could or should put out a call for more volunteers? Of course 6.0 may end up being more than 3 months after upstream release, but time will tell. Cia W Thank you Cia W :) -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] hardware problem with 5.6
On 14/01/2011 17:22, mahmoud mansy wrote: hey every one i got the centos 5.5 and the following problem occuered: 1- the video display doesnot probe my card right. 2- the wireless card doesnot installed . my laptop is dell studio1569: ( display card is intel hd arrandle , the wireless card is intel advanced centrino n6200 series ) but the fedora 14 did it will with both also the ubuntu? I would first check that your hardware is compatible with CentOS - I'd do that by going onto RedHat's site, and checking their supported hardware list, if its there, we have a winner, if not, then I think it would be acceptable to not expect it to work 100%. Because something works in ubuntu, or fedora, (both of which I consider desktop distros) doesn't mean that it'll work in all other versions of linux, because there are different kernel versions out there. Even kernel versions that are the same between distros, may have been compiled with different options. -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? I would really like to automate this, so that I can keep track of the RPMS's and build them into my own future repo. (That's another project, I'm sure I'll come to the list for that one!) -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry - Smooth Sailing with CentOS -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 10:39, mahmoud mansy wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Mister IT Guru misteritg...@gmx.com mailto:misteritg...@gmx.com wrote: At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? I would really like to automate this, so that I can keep track of the RPMS's and build them into my own future repo. (That's another project, I'm sure I'll come to the list for that one!) i think u can do that with virtuals? I'm not 100% sure I get what you mean? If you mean commissioning virtual machines to build them on, I've thought of that, but I haven't had the time to build a 'compile' farm. -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry - Smooth Sailing with CentOS -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 12:12, JohnS wrote: On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:25 +, Mister IT Guru wrote: At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? That would be dependent upon your build environment and how you set it up. As in a mock based chroot or a Non-Root build system along with cross-compiler tools etc. Takes a lot of planing to go along with it also. I am prepared to build a seperate machine specifically for this purpose. It'll be a 64 bit instance, which I am assuming should have no problem compiling for 32 bit systems? I have heard of the mock project, but I have not looked into it for a while. I guess that will be my first port of call. For the 3 arches you want they could all be done under mock in a x86_64 environment. Under Non-Root x86_64 Multilib arch machine can be done also with great care in how you choose your devel packages. Automation could be done with a wrapper script setup, really easy to do. Sometimes you just can not automate every part of it so I would not expect that. You would need to do manual checks on the outcome of the srpm and the binary or build a unit test framework. John Thanks John, Unit Test Framework - Hmmm, I like the way your thinking, then I suppose I could use it for more than just one source code project. I think this is getting just a touch off topic, but should still be relevant to the sysadmins in the house? hehe -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 12:26, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Mister IT Gurumisteritg...@gmx.com wrote: At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? I would really like to automate this, so that I can keep track of the RPMS's and build them into my own future repo. (That's another project, I'm sure I'll come to the list for that one!) *IF* your box is an x86_64 box, you can do it. This is usually done with mock, by using chroot cages with specific layouts and automatic deployment of relevant libraries. I have an x86_64 box running Xen, so a paravirtualised guest has just been ordered for building a Mock Environment. I'm going to have to run to Google to learn more in the short space of time I have open to me, you guys seems to be nudging me in the right direction. Thank you -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Recompiling source rpms for i386, i686 and x86_64 on the same box?
On 13/01/2011 12:54, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Mister IT Gurumisteritg...@gmx.com wrote: On 13/01/2011 12:26, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Mister IT Gurumisteritg...@gmx.com wrote: At the risk of sounding like an newbie, is is possible to build the RPMS for all architectures on the same box at the same time? I would really like to automate this, so that I can keep track of the RPMS's and build them into my own future repo. (That's another project, I'm sure I'll come to the list for that one!) *IF* your box is an x86_64 box, you can do it. This is usually done with mock, by using chroot cages with specific layouts and automatic deployment of relevant libraries. I have an x86_64 box running Xen, so a paravirtualised guest has just been ordered for building a Mock Environment. I'm going to have to run to Google to learn more in the short space of time I have open to me, you guys seems to be nudging me in the right direction. Thank you That is going nto be unnecessarily slow. If you can run mock on the Xen server itself, you'll get a noticeable speed-up, especially with large packages like the kernel and Xorg and gimp and Samba. I'm not 100% comfortable with mixing server tasks - especially when the boxes are managed using puppet - (google it, puppet is frikkin awesome!) I always assumed that with paravirtualisation that I'll get near native speeds. Either way, whatever the needs determine - it seems that building a mock environment is the way to go. I'm looking for a mock mailing list, but I guess either this list or the fedora list should be sufficient, right? -- The Solo System Admin - Follow me - I follow you http://solosysad.blogspot.com/ Latest Entry: Bacula - Building from source -- Mister IT Guru At Gmx Dot Com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
