Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community 
> member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. 

Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
hard to respect.



John

-- 
There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it.

-- Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784), French philosopher and chief editor of the
   historic project to produce L'Encyclopidie, as quoted in Dictionary if
   Foreign Quotations (1980) by Mary Collison, Robert L. Collison, p. 235





pgpRG0m1e7r88.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Cant find out MCE reason (CPU 35 BANK 8)

[Vladimir Budnev]

On 03/22/11 19:00, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Vladimir Budnev wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/22
>>  
> 
>
> So with 2 4-core Xeons, I don't understand how you can get 3x and 5x.
> Could you post some raw messages, either from /var/log/message or
> from /var/log/mcelog?
>
>
 sure here they are before "night party":
 MCE 24
 CPU 52 BANK 8 TSC 372a290717a
 MISC 68651f81186 ADDR 7dd2ad840
 STATUS cc000281009f MCGSTATUS 0
 MCE 25
  
>>> 
>>> At this point, I throw up my hands. I have *no* idea how they could get
>>> numbers like CPU 52, unless something's wrong in the o/s - I mean, you
>>> are running 64 bit, right?
>>>
>> Yeah, x86_64
>> I have an idea dunnothe thing is we r runngin 4.8 centos. Its old
>> enough and mcelog version is old enough also, mb it decodes something
>>  
> completely
>
>> wrong.
>>  
> It could be that 4.8 doesn't really understand the CPU.
>
>
>> Anyway thanks so much for your time and answers. Hope we will find those
>> dimms in experiments.
>>  
> Seriously - how old is this? I think you should call your vendor: some
> will give you phone or email support, even after the end of warranty.
>
>   mark
>
>

Forgot to write our solution, mb it will be usefull for someone. In our 
case the problem was(as expected) in DIMM modules. After replacing no 
more scare mcelogs e.t.c.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Named, logging of requests

[Jussi Hirvi]

This is not really CentOS-specific - sorry.

On a name server, I would like to log ns queries (specifically, queries 
which result with no answer) regarding one domain (for which my ns is 
authoritative). Is this possible?

I know you can turn on logging "globally" using the logging section of 
named.conf.

- Jussi

-- 
Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot
Suvilahdenkatu 1 B 78 * 00500 Helsinki * Finland
Tel. +358 9 493 981 * Mobile +358 40 771 2098 (only sms)
jussi.hi...@greenspot.fi * http://www.greenspot.fi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

> 
> Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned  CentOS
> that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated  writings
> hard to respect.
> 

Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".

Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs 
assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted 
from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
should 
really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to 
his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done.


As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me 
comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

[Reynolds McClatchey]

Many thanks for the rpm's. I had some evolution stored
documents that I really needed. I've applied them to
two systems.

Is it possible that the gnome panel problem is only on CRT's and
not LEDs? Seems like one of my systems fixed itself when
I changed monitors.
-- 
M Reynolds McClatchey JrVP Engineering and Inventory
Southern Aluminum Finishing Co Inc  404-355-1560 x222 Voice
1581 Huber St NW404-350-0581 Fax
Atlanta GA 30318


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] is the list dead?

[Rudi Ahlers]

Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden?

-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?

[Drew]

> Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden?

I'm going to assume people have stopped whining now that their beloved
5.6 is out. :-)


-- 
Drew

"This started out as a hobby and spun horribly out of control."
-Unknown
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?

[Ed Westphal]

On 4/20/2011 9:06 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden?
>
> -- 
> Kind Regards
> Rudi Ahlers
> SoftDux
>
> Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
> Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
> Office: 087 805 9573
> Cell: 082 554 7532
I think they exhausted themselves - all the release 6, 5.6, and glibc 
'issues' just plain tuckered 'em out! Poor fellow geeks. :-)

ENW


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?

[Rudi Ahlers]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Drew  wrote:

> > Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden?
>
> I'm going to assume people have stopped whining now that their beloved
> 5.6 is out. :-)
>
>
> --
>
>


HAHAH! Ok, that makes sense. For a moment I thought we were all banned from
the list, or it got so flooded than it was shutdown or something.


-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?

[m . roth]

Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden?

Yep, it's dead, and you didn't read this, either.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Brian Mathis]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray  wrote:
> Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".
>
> Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs
> assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted
> from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
> should
> really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to
> his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't 
> done.


No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced"
chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
that would have been nice, but not a requirement.


> As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to 
> me
> comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.


It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.

It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's
not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open
alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
deem it worthy to give you anything at all."

The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real"
work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.

Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.


// Brian Mathis


[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync

[Mailing List]

On 4/13/2011 7:35 AM, Mailing List wrote:

Hi,

  I have upgraded my Dell C151 to the latest 5.6. I have always used
ntp to sync this machine and then the rest of the machines in the
network would sync from it. Since the update I cannot keep the right
time on the machine. This is with / without ntp. I have attempted
various scenario's with no luck. I am now trying the old kernel now as
I type this out. If anyone else has any links or ideas that I should
check out It would be greatly appreciated.

 Just a quick note about my setup. I do not use any gui. As
mentioned I have not had any issues with this machine and it's time
until I upgrade.

AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
3gb of ram.

TIA.

Brian.



I hope I'm not the only one having this issue with ntp and the new 
5.6 kernels..


  I am still stuck on the old 5.5 kernel, anything from the 5.6 era and 
I start seeing time issues.


Brian.




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6

[centos-announce-request]

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. CEBA-2011:0450 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 xorg-x11  Update
  (Johnny Hughes)
   2. CEEA-2011:0408 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 tzdata Update (Johnny Hughes)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:38:25 -0500
From: Johnny Hughes 
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0450 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64
xorg-x11Update
To: CentOS-Announce 
Message-ID: <4daec5b1.4010...@centos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory CEBA-2011:0450

xorg-x11 bugfix update for CentOS 4 i386 and x86_64:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0450.html

The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing
to the mirrors:

i386:
xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm

x86_64:
xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm
xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm

src:
xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.src.rpm

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20110420/c554842d/attachment-0001.bin
 

--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:38:50 -0500
From: Johnny Hughes 
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEEA-2011:0408 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 tzdata
Update
To: CentOS-Announce 
Message-ID: <4daec5ca.1010...@centos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2011:0408

Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0408.html

The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors:

noarch:
tzdata-2011d-3.el4.noarch.rpm

SRC:
tzdata-2011d-3.el4.src.rpm

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20110420/e661793d/attachment-0001.bin
 

--

___
CentOS-announce mailing list
centos-annou...@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce


End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6
**
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Tom H]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>> Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community
>> member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
> that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
> hard to respect.

I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.

You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
reflexion of the CentOS lists.

If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
types of articles...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Convert Filesystem to Ext4

[John Beranek]

On 19/04/2011 23:51, Kenni Lund wrote:
> 
> Den 19/04/2011 19.42 skrev "Matt"  >:
>>
>> On a running 64 bit CentOS 5.6 box is it possible to convert from Ext3
>> to Ext4 to improve performance?
> 
> This is entirely from memory, so it might be incorrect and not relevant
> anymore: When ext4 got released, it was possible to upgrade ext3 to
> ext4, but while you would gain some ext4 features and minor performance
> improvements, the only way to get native ext4 performance, was to delete
> and recreate the partition.

That's not quite true, you can force files on a partition to be
re-created using extents with something like the below:

find /home -xdev -type f -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e
find /home -xdev -type d -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e

Cheers,

John.

-- 
John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] rpm libuser-devel is not signed

[Olaf Mueller]

Hello,

'yum update' runs into the following error message.

Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed


regards
Olaf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

> 
> No.   News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
> of what's  going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
> a  complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced"
> chances  for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
> that would  have been nice, but not a requirement.
> 

I was just trying to be fair, otherwise I get flamed. 
> 
> > As for the other side of  the point of view, please refer to JH's response 
> > to 
>me
> > comment. I'll  paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
> 
> 
> It doesn't  matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
> responses are  absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
> seriously sitting down  with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
> doesn't seem to realize  that telling people to f*ck off is not
> acceptable behavior, no matter who you  are or what you do.
> 

Totally agree, but I don't see it changing any time soon.


> It doesn't matter if you provide something "for  free", because it's
> not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests  significant time and
> energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on  claims on the web site,
> and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not  "an open
> alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy  we
> deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
> 

My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing 
(i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker 
got 
that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the 
website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, 
as 
it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they 
would make you take out all references just like RH do.


> The attitudes against  any user who has a question about releases
> significantly undermines the  project and is a slap in the face to
> everyone who has chosen to support and  proselytize CentOS throughout
> the years.  The idea that the Devs are the  only ones who do any "real"
> work on the project is complete BS.  It was  the *users* who put all
> the hard work into implementing CentOS and building  up the usage
> numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
> 
> Also, based  on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
> can only assume that  the real reason behind keeping the dev process
> closed is to maintain the egos  of those on the inside -- since all
> avenues of logic seem to have been  exhausted.

I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
me 
sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

I have long since concluded that the devs do it for their own reasons and 
certainly not for any altruistic reasons.

> 
> 
> // Brian Mathis
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html
> ___
> CentOS  mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Andre Charbonneau]

Hi,
I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches.

But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':

Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed

and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.


I tried clearing the cache and re-running the update command but I get
the same error.

Any help with this would be much appreciated.

Best regards,
  Andre
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Brunner, Brian T.]

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> Hi,
> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the
> software patches.
> 
> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
> 
> Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
> 
> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.

yum --skip-broken update


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.

//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Andre Charbonneau]

Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
>> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the
>> software patches.
>>
>> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
>>
>> Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>
>> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.
>> 
>
> yum --skip-broken update
>   
Thanks for the quick reply!
Unfortunately, that did not seem to fix the problem.  I get the same
error. :-(

Andre
>
> Insert spiffy .sig here:
> Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
>
> //me
> ***
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
> email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
> www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>   


-- 
Andre Charbonneau
Research Computing Support, IMSB
National Research Council Canada
100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6
613-993-3129

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Mathieu Baudier]

> The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
> significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to

"any" user?
Or users who keep repeating again and again the same boring old stuff?

I think that we now all know what to expect and what not to expect from CentOS.
And that some here are frustrated with it, while some aren't.

Is there anything else relevant to add?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Filipe Rosset]

On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote:
> Hi,
> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches.
> 
> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
> 
> Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
> 
> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.
> 
> 
> I tried clearing the cache and re-running the update command but I get
> the same error.
> 

You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not
recommended) or wait for a fixed package.

-- 
Filipe
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Mathieu Baudier]

>    Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed

You could use --nogpgcheck but this is really weird that some packages
are not signed.
It may mean that the package is not from the trusted source, so you
should not use --nogpgcheck on a "serious" environment.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Andre Charbonneau]

Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>> 
>
> You could use --nogpgcheck but this is really weird that some packages
> are not signed.
>   
> It may mean that the package is not from the trusted source, so you
> should not use --nogpgcheck on a "serious" environment.
>   
Yes, that's what I thought too about not disabling gpg. 
yum info on the package reports that the update is coming from the
'updates' repo, and that repo is configured to be:

[updates]
name=CentOS-$releasever - Updates
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever&arch=$basearch&repo=updates
#baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-5

This is all the default settings from a fresh install; I'm not aware
that anything changed in these configs.

If this package is not signed, then I guess other people should be able
to reproduce the problem if they point to the default repos, right?  Or
maybe it is something on my system's config that is different?

Thanks again!
  Andre

> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>   


-- 
Andre Charbonneau
Research Computing Support, IMSB
National Research Council Canada
100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6
613-993-3129

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] SNMP monitoring options

[Charles Polisher]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:37:28PM -0700, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Ummm, Cacti and I'm sure Opsview use rrdtool to generate there graphs.
> 
> In fact, my post was to ask for a more friendly tool as Cacti graphs  
> get un ruley.

'Unruly' graphs? Not sure what you mean. The data presentation
is poor? The package is hard to use? I'm a Cacti user, and while
sometimes the docs are a little cryptic, the developers are 
very supportive and there is an active user community with
a pretty helpful forum.
-- 
Charles Polisher


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Akemi Yagi]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset  wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
>> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches.
>>
>> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
>>
>>     Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>
>> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.

> You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not
> recommended) or wait for a fixed package.

Another workaround:

Put this line in /etc/yum.conf

exclude=libuser*

yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to
remove the exclude line.

Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Andre Charbonneau]

Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset  
> wrote:
>   
>> On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first
>>> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches.
>>>
>>> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
>>>
>>> Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>>
>>> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.
>>>   
>
>   
>> You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not
>> recommended) or wait for a fixed package.
>> 
>
> Another workaround:
>
> Put this line in /etc/yum.conf
>
> exclude=libuser*
>
> yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to
> remove the exclude line.
>
> Akemi
>   
Thanks for the tip!
That seems to be working; my update process is underway now.

Thank you all for the help,
  Andre
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>   


-- 
Andre Charbonneau
Research Computing Support, IMSB
National Research Council Canada
100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6
613-993-3129

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Marcel Beerli]

 
Another option is to exclude it on the command line

yum -x libuser update

/Marcel



-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of 
Andre Charbonneau
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:16 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset  
> wrote:
>   
>> On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first 
>>> thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches.
>>>
>>> But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update':
>>>
>>> Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed
>>>
>>> and yum update exits without applying any of the patches.
>>>   
>
>   
>> You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not
>> recommended) or wait for a fixed package.
>> 
>
> Another workaround:
>
> Put this line in /etc/yum.conf
>
> exclude=libuser*
>
> yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to 
> remove the exclude line.
>
> Akemi
>   
Thanks for the tip!
That seems to be working; my update process is underway now.

Thank you all for the help,
  Andre
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>   


--
Andre Charbonneau
Research Computing Support, IMSB
National Research Council Canada
100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158
Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6
613-993-3129

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Kai Schaetzl]

These packages are quite new (only a few hours old). They must have been 
accidentally not signed. Skip them for the time being.

Kai


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails

[Akemi Yagi]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Marcel Beerli  wrote:
>
> Another option is to exclude it on the command line
>
> yum -x libuser update
>
> /Marcel

Ah, yes. One note is that adding a * ( libuser* ) is recommended
because libuser-devel is also not signed. :(

Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
> My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
> thing 
> (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. 

[sigh]

CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; 
simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible).  No reason to change; the 
name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time.  This is not new. 

Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know 
isn't going to happen. 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison  wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
>>> Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community
>>> member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee.
>> Respected?  I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS
>> that wasn't disparaging.  I find such one-sided and opinionated writings
>> hard to respect.
> 
> I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
> isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.
> 
> You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
> reflexion of the CentOS lists.

You obviously wanted to say "reflection of the persistent complainers on 
the CentOS lists".

CentOS is pinned down with "friendly fire" aimed mostly at Oracle and 
other free riders on RHEL. Red Hat wants more money, and this is the 
only way they can do that.

As for those asking for transparent process, my only conclusion is that 
they want to find out how they can recreate RHEL so they can create a 
fork of CentOS. And that is happening because they are not competent 
enough (or lack money/time) to do it on their own. Why haven't they got 
all information from Scientific Linux? If SL is better and faster with 
releases, then they should ask SL devs to give them access to their 
machines, or to publish their entire build system. I have not seen that 
happening so far. Why?

Also, are you aware that RHEL 6.0 itself is very late?

Info from wikipedia:
- RHEL 2 -> 3 took 18 months.
- RHEL 3 -> 4 took 19 months.
- RHEL 4 -> 5 took 25 months.
- but RHEL 5 -> 6 took whooping 44 months.

- CentOS delay for 3.1 was 5 months,
- CentOS delay for 4 was 1 month,
- CentOS delay for 5 was 1 month,
- CentOS delay for 6 is currently 5 months and counting,


So if for RHEL took almost 2,5 times the amount of time to release new 
version (6.0), why is there so much fuss about CentOS team taking it so 
long to untangle the web Red Hat produced, including parallel releases 
of 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0, an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from 
the previous version, and initial delay of publishing SRPMS?

I also wish CentOS 6 was released at least in the end of January, but 
mea culpa, it is what it is.

> 
> If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
> types of articles...
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
> 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> 
> I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect
> isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another.

I have read some of his articles in the past and I speak from the point
of knowledge of his past writings; and also knowledge of his past
involvement with a different linux distribution.  He's apparently got an
axe to grind against the CentOS project.  That's fine, this is a free
country and he can write and say whatever he wants.  But to allude to
him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
article even ending on a positive note.  That type of writing, much like
the constant complainers on this list that, for whatever reason, stay
with CentOS when alternatives exist eventually turns into nothing more
than noise.

> You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
> reflexion of the CentOS lists.

No.  His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list
and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the
problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two
sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the
negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice.

> If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these
> types of articles...

No.  These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a
communications "policy" or not.  However having someone actually posting
updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing.  And preferably someone
that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list).




John
-- 
The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to
have any.

-- Katharine Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist 


pgpM9MAP6WP3z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync

[Rick Thomas]

> On 4/13/2011 7:35 AM, Mailing List wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  I have upgraded my Dell C151 to the latest 5.6. I have always used
>> ntp to sync this machine and then the rest of the machines in the
>> network would sync from it. Since the update I cannot keep the right
>> time on the machine. This is with / without ntp. I have attempted
>> various scenario's with no luck. I am now trying the old kernel now  
>> as
>> I type this out. If anyone else has any links or ideas that I should
>> check out It would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Just a quick note about my setup. I do not use any gui. As
>> mentioned I have not had any issues with this machine and it's time
>> until I upgrade.
>>
>> AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
>> 3gb of ram.
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>> Brian.


Have you tried installing the adjtimex package?  If your system clock  
is running reliably fast under the 5.6 kernel, maybe adjtimex can turn  
that reliability into reliable time sync for you?

Rick
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

> 
> Is there anything else relevant to  add?
> ___

Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution 
for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has 
read about it ad nausem on this list.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 05:51:46 PM Ian Murray wrote:
> > Is there anything else relevant to  add?
 
> Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the 
> distribution 
> for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone 
> has 
> read about it ad nausem on this list.

Irrelevant.

*plonk*
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
> From: Lamar Owen 
> To: CentOS mailing list 
> Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 21:32:35
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
> 
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote:
> > My big beef  has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
>thing 
>
> >  (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. 
> 
> [sigh]
> 
> CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the  upstream Enterprise 
> OS; 
>simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible).   No reason to change; the 
>name captures what it is, and has been, for a long  time.  This is not new. 
>

Sounds perfect. Why does the website say something so different, then?

> 
> Not trying to be rude, but, you might as  well stop suggesting what you know 
>isn't going to happen. 
>

I believe it will never, I hope I am wrong.

> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R Pierce]

On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
>
>> Is there anything else relevant to  add?
>> ___
> Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution
> for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone 
> has
> read about it ad nausem on this list.

you're the one going on ad nausem.   seriously, enough already.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync

[Mailing List]

On 4/20/2011 5:45 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:


Have you tried installing the adjtimex package?  If your system clock
is running reliably fast under the 5.6 kernel, maybe adjtimex can turn
that reliability into reliable time sync for you?

Rick


No I haven't, I will look into it. Thank you for the thought,

Brian



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

>  But to allude to
> him as a  respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
> every article  that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
> article even  ending on a positive note.  

Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/

(For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... 
I 
stopped at page 6)

Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
that 
isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.

>


 
> >  You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
> >  reflexion of the CentOS lists.
> 
> No.  His conclusions are rehashed,  sometimes verbatim, from this list
> and the same vocal and tiny minority of  users; and that's one of the
> problems I have with his style of one-sided  journalism - there are two
> sides to most every story and when you concentrate  solely on the
> negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave  disservice.

And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we 
know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.


> 
> > If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare  itself these
> > types of articles...
> 
> No.  These types of  articles will continue to appear whether there is a
> communications "policy"  or not. 

In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every 
community project irrespective of governance would get "these" types of 
articles 
and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!

> 
> 
>   John
> -- 
> The easiest way for your  children to learn about money is for you not to
> have any.
> 
> -- Katharine  Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist 
> 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ian Murray]

- Original Message 
> From: John R Pierce 
> To: centos@centos.org
> Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 23:04:50
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
> 
> On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> >
> >> Is there anything  else relevant to  add?
> >>  ___
> > Yeah, please can someone  fix the front-page to better reflect the 
>distribution
> > for what it is,  rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not 
> > everyone 
>has
> > read  about it ad nausem on this list.
> 
> you're the one going on ad nausem.seriously, enough  already.

Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's

[Bob Hepple]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100
Karanbir Singh  wrote:

> Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start 
> going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest 
> I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.

Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l]
*.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or
perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -

http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 

I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it
looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.

But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor
httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?

Does anyone see them elsewhere?



-- 
Bob Hepple 
ph: 07-5584-5908 Fx: 07-5575-9550
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's

[Don Krause]

On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100
> Karanbir Singh  wrote:
> 
>> Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start 
>> going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest 
>> I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
> 
> Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l]
> *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or
> perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
> 
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 
> 
> I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it
> looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
> 
> But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor
> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
> 
> Does anyone see them elsewhere?
> 


Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 
14th in 5/os/SRPMS

In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 
initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm

It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not 
finished.)

--
Don Krause   








smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's

[Bob Hepple]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700
Don Krause  wrote:

> On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100
> > Karanbir Singh  wrote:
> > 
> >> Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start 
> >> going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest 
> >> I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
> > 
> > Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l]
> > *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or
> > perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
> > 
> > http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 
> > 
> > I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it
> > looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
> > 
> > But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor
> > httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
> > 
> > Does anyone see them elsewhere?
> > 
> 
> 
> Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 
> 14th in 5/os/SRPMS
> 
> In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 
> initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm
> 
> It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not 
> finished.)
> 

Don,

I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my
local AUS mirrors have been up to date with

http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 

for some days now:

http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/

... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!!


Cheers


Bob

-- 
Bob Hepple 
ph: 07-5584-5908 Fx: 07-5575-9550
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's

[Don Krause]

On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700
> Don Krause  wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100
>>> Karanbir Singh  wrote:
>>> 
 Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start 
 going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest 
 I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning.
>>> 
>>> Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l]
>>> *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or
>>> perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place -
>>> 
>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 
>>> 
>>> I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it
>>> looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered.
>>> 
>>> But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor
>>> httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others?
>>> 
>>> Does anyone see them elsewhere?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than 
>> Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS
>> 
>> In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 
>> initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm
>> 
>> It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not 
>> finished.)
>> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my
> local AUS mirrors have been up to date with
> 
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ 
> 
> for some days now:
> 
> http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
> http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/
> 
> ... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!!
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Bob


Thanks Bob,

It doesn't appear to be me, as much as kernel.org. Their webpage 
http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D
has nothing newer than Dec 14th either..

Something must be broke (or really slow) out there.

Time to switch to a new mirror I guess 

Take Care!
--
Don Krause   








smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] rpm libuser-devel is not signed

[Ben McGinnes]

On 21/04/11 5:26 AM, Olaf Mueller wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 'yum update' runs into the following error message.
> 
> Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed

I got this too, there's two ways around it:

1) Wait until the package is signed and then update.

2) Run: yum update --nogpgcheck


Regards,
Ben



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
> finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

How about I write you a check to just go away?




John

-- 
The truth is, when all is said and done, one does not teach a subject, one
teaches a student how to learn it.  Teaching may look like administering a
dose, but even a dose must be worked on by the body if it is to cure.  Each
individual must cure his or her own ignorance.

-- Jacques Barzun (30 November 1907-), French-born American scholar,
   historian, critic and teacher, "Reasons to De-Test the Schools,"
   New York Times, 11 October 1988


pgp8voePv1n4V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Convert Filesystem to Ext4

[Ryan Wagoner]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, John Beranek  wrote:
> That's not quite true, you can force files on a partition to be
> re-created using extents with something like the below:
>
> find /home -xdev -type f -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e
> find /home -xdev -type d -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e
>
> Cheers,
>
> John.
>

chattr and lsattr shipped with CentOS 5.6 do not seem ext4 aware.
Those utilities come from e2fsprogs and e4fsprogs doesn't include
alternate versions. +e is an invalid parameter for chattr and lsattr
doesn't show the extent attribute for any files.

Ryan
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Garry Dale]

(someone) wrote:
> Why does the website say something so different, then?

Seriously?  Are people really this retarded?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray  wrote:

> Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll
> finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.

I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS
distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested
a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even
use CentOS any more? (Serious question.)

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Brian Mathis

> It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's
> not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
> energy into it.

How so? By installing it?

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray  wrote:

> My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one 
> thing
> (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker 
> got
> that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the
> website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, 
> as
> it is a valued "brand" now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they
> would make you take out all references just like RH do.

It sounds to me like "your big beef" is that you can't run the CentOS
distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not,
doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many
enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in
patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure
that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have
learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on
their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or
Scientific Linux.

As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do
what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild
that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS
name.

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:18:21AM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
> 
> No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
> of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
> a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced"
> chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
> that would have been nice, but not a requirement.

The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

> It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
> responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
> seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
> doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
> acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.

It's perfectly acceptable when it's the same vocal few over and over
again.  Matter of fact, I commend him on the restraint he's shown so
far.  It's a point of fact that some people are too thick-skulled to
understand any other way; tact doesn't always work - at times you need
to be brutally honest and blunt.

> It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's
> not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
> energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
> and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open
> alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
> deem it worthy to give you anything at all."

What caliber of firearm is pointed at your skull keeping you here?

By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
with it.

> The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
> significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
> everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
> the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real"
> work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
> the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
> numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.

Oh please. 

> Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
> can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
> closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
> avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.

But yet... here you are.

This begs the question:

Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?  You've nothing good to say.
Ever.  Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your
fingers endears you to the CentOS team?  Do you think they care?  Do you
think you're important to them?  Let me disabuse you of something:  the
answer to all 3 items above is "no".  As difficult as it may be for you
to accept the truth is you're irrelevant.  As I've pointed out in the
past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in
the least.  You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base
and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or
any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed.  Do you
think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is
going to cause anyone any loss of sleep?  Why don't you do yourself and
everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you
don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?



John
-- 
Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of
a person or animal is at stake.  Society's punishments are small compared
to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.

-- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), civil-rights leader


pgpLWGFsZOr5v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
> me 
> sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

Information needed to rebuild is, and has been for quite some
time, in the archives of this and the -devel mailing lists.

Johnny has posted such information.  Russ has posted
information.  There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know
of, and likely many more that I don't.

There is no magic.

While it can be argued (and I would actually be in agreement)
that such information should be wikified the fact is that the
information _is_ out there.




John

-- 
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it
rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously.  Like
a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming.  The oftener
one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.

-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist


pgpG8YSZF6vi5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:25:06PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/

I've read the articles; I've no need to re-read them.

> (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from 
> him... I 
> stopped at page 6)

You didn't look very hard.

> Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
> linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
> using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
> that 
> isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.

The project is fine for what I need it for.  And, again, it's only a
tiny fraction of the user base that has a problem with the project and
the project management that are making a big stink about things.

> And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as 
> we 
> know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
> people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.

I've never said that there weren't issues.  Matter of fact I've agreed
that there are indeed communication problems that I hope will be
resolved.  The difference is I'm not crying about the sky falling.

And do us a favor?  Take your own advice.




John

-- 
Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.

-- Woody Page, Denver sports columnist


pgp049x9N1O9m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Keith Keller]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:01:22PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> > 
> > Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll 
> > finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide.
> 
> How about I write you a check to just go away?

Is it really that easy?!?  I'm going to start whinging constantly till
you write me a check!  ;-)

--keith

-- 
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us



pgpxEeQx5EUhO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 4/21/11, John R. Dennison  wrote:
> The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
> irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
> lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation.
However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
deciding against the project without posting a single word.

Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

> By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
> support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
> page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
> with it.

They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment
that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs,
without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months,
would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies,
even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user
to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.

> This begs the question:
> Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?

I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others
extra incentive ;)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 09:18 AM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray  wrote:
>> Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to "respect".
>>
>> Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs
>> assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted
>> from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He 
>> should
>> really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to
>> his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't 
>> done.
> 
> 
> No.  News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment
> of what's going on.  The article has done that.  It doesn't have to be
> a complete factual research project with totally "fair and balanced"
> chances for everyone to have their say.  If the Devs had responded,
> that would have been nice, but not a requirement.
> 
> 
>> As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to 
>> me
>> comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it.
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong.  JH's
> responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be
> seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude.  He
> doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not
> acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you provide something "for free", because it's
> not free.  Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and
> energy into it.  Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site,
> and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not "an open
> alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we
> deem it worthy to give you anything at all."
> 
> The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases
> significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to
> everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout
> the years.  The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any "real"
> work on the project is complete BS.  It was the *users* who put all
> the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage
> numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs.
> 
> Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one
> can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process
> closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all
> avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted.

For the record, I brought KB into this project ... not the other way around.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give 
> me 
> sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.

Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
them?  Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
we give to others.

CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more
than is required by the GPL.

CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about
the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the
Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing
Lists and IRC.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[John R. Dennison]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:19:12PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation.
> However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
> is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
> there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
> deciding against the project without posting a single word.

I'll take that bet.

I'd be curious to see some stats on downloads now that 5.6 is out; along
with torrent activity.  While neither are a definitive view as to how
popular the disto remains they provide some insight how popular CentOS 5
remains.

> Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
> same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
> effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

I'll take this bet, as well.  While I admit that there is an emotional
aspect that comes into play when someone has indeed spent time/emotional
energy on a project I will bet you real dollars that those doing the
most complaining aren't in that group.

> The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
> posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
> the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
> unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

Possible?  Sure as anything's possible.  The moon could break out of
orbit tonight as well.  However I'm going to go with "There are other
factors at play that are contributing to the illustrated 'decline' of
CentOS-based web servers that have nothing to do with the supposed
problems that people perceive to be wrong with the CentOS distribution.".

> They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment
> that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs,
> without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months,
> would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies,
> even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user
> to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms.

Please keep in mind that CentOS, be it the project or the distribution,
is not a company.  It's not recruiting "customers".  There is no
break-even point or sales quota requirements.  People use it if they
want.  Also, another point is that the CentOS devs don't really provide
the support; support, almost exclusively, is a community effort.  Note
that by "community" I include the forum moderators that have a closer
relationship with the CentOS devs than the average community member.
And no matter what anyone may think of the project or the developers,
community support is as good or better than that provided by the
majority of commercial enterprises I've dealt with in the past 30 years
as a *nix admin/engineer.

> I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others
> extra incentive ;)

We'll see :)




John
-- 
The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it
rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously.  Like
a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming.  The oftener
one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes.

-- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist


pgpuAudOWdO7f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
 wrote:

> Perhaps only a small handful keep "whining" about the situation.
> However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML
> is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer,
> there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be
> deciding against the project without posting a single word.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If you look at who has been
complaining, a select few names span several years -- even when there
are no point releases pending, they complain. Anyone who has ever used
a newsgroup knows that some people "delight" in disrupting the
process. They're called "trolls" on newsgroups. When someone
continually repeats the same thing over and over and over, *ad
nauseum*, then I would not conclude that they speaking for nine others
who are silent.

> Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the
> same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect
> effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another.

Doubtful. Some people have an extremely negative outlook or they have
an agenda that they hope achieve by being the constantly "squeaking
wheel." Or, as in newsgroups, they have a need to be always "stirring
the pot." and this is how they stroke their egos. Whatever it is, many
complainers are never satisfied, even when they get what they want.
That's just their personality and it's not going to change.

> The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev
> posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of
> the above two possible consequences of some of the rather
> unprofessional responses by the some of the devs.

I haven't been following the mailing list that closely lately, but
when the same people constantly harp on the same subject it tends to
get under your skin. I would imagine when the developers (who have had
two point releases and a major release thrown at them all at one time)
are already tired due to the extra work, the ungrateful and
repetitious bitching from the same few complainers would tend to be
extremely irritating.

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/20/2011 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>> I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
>> give me 
>> sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
> 
> Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
> them?  Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
> we give to others.
> 
> CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more
> than is required by the GPL.
> 
> CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about
> the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the
> Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing
> Lists and IRC.


The is the description of the project on the main page:

CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources
freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise
Linux vendor.  CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors
redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS
mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.)
 CentOS is free.

CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers.  In
turn the core developers are supported by an active user community
including system administrators, network administrators, enterprise
users, managers, core Linux contributors and Linux enthusiasts from
around the world.


Where does that say it is the goal of CentOS to provide step by step
instructions to teach other projects how to rebuild the upstream sources?

What that says is the the devs build CentOS and the Community provides
support 

How am I misreading it?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Raymond Lillard]

> This begs the question:
>
> Why are you still here?  No, really.  Why?  You've nothing good to say.
> Ever.  Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your
> fingers endears you to the CentOS team?  Do you think they care?  Do you
> think you're important to them?  Let me disabuse you of something:  the
> answer to all 3 items above is "no".  As difficult as it may be for you
> to accept the truth is you're irrelevant.  As I've pointed out in the
> past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in
> the least.  You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base
> and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or
> any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed.  Do you
> think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is
> going to cause anyone any loss of sleep?  Why don't you do yourself and
> everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you
> don't dislike as much as you do CentOS?
>

 Because -- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't 
change the subject.
 Sir Winston Churchill
 British politician (1874 - 1965)






___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/20/11 8:53 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>
> The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and
> irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing
> lists.  He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find.

If he had wanted to be really critical he would have quoted project members 
suggesting that if people needed security fixes they should have their 
operators 
build their own untested versions or pay someone to do one-off builds for them.

> By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to
> support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web
> page has other problems; as does the management team that went along
> with it.

Previously that decision might have been made on the basis of CentOS having a 
history of timely security updates.  Now you can't say that for any sane 
definition of timely.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6 and KVM failure

[Ian Forde]

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:47 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/09/2011 12:04 PM, compdoc wrote:
> >> A similar incident was reported during the QA. Look at the .xml file.
> >> If it says type='raw', change it to type='qcow2' and restart libvirtd.
> >> Would that fix the problem ?
> >>
> >> Akemi
> > 
> > Thank you. After reading your message, I googled the error and found a
> > webpage that describes a slightly different procedure than yours, but which
> > does the same thing:
> > 
> > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1638708
> > 
> > Everything is working now.
> > 
> > :)
> 
> I am going to add this to the Release Notes for 5.6 on the Wiki now.

Turns out that wasn't the only problem I faced in my migration.  With 2
KVM servers, both sharing a volume mounted via NFS for VMs, I migrated
all VMs to the second node, upgraded the first, them moved them all back
to KVM1.  Instant disk corruption on all VMs.  Boom.

I have a second pair of KVM servers.  I tested one VM with my normal
migrate-them-out-of-the-way procedure, and it, too, suffered MASSIVE
filesystem corruption.  This was even after I'd made the qcow2 mods and
restarted libvirtd.

The only way I was able to not have to rebuild the remaining
non-corrupted VMs was to shut them down on one node then bring them back
up again.  Turns out live migration doesn't work in this upgrade.
(Though I'll test regular live migration tomorrow, given that all 4 KVM
servers have now been upgraded.)

-I

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Les Mikesell]

On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
>> give me
>> sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
>
> Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
> them?

Why?  Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not 
exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and 
improve_ what they do.  Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do 
closed development.

 > Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
> we give to others.

Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:25 +0100, Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> >  But to allude to
> > him as a  respected industry member is greatly stretching things when
> > every article  that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any
> > article even  ending on a positive note.  
> 
> Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/
> 
> (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from 
> him... I 
> stopped at page 6)
> 
> Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big 
> linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am 
> using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If 
> that 
> isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine.

He doesn't seem like a hack to me either. I checked his archive and he
seems to be genuine and expressed his concern about the lack of a
release back in February so it's a logical extension to be even more
concerned that here we are in late April and still nothing.

> > >  You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a
> > >  reflexion of the CentOS lists.
> > 
> > No.  His conclusions are rehashed,  sometimes verbatim, from this list
> > and the same vocal and tiny minority of  users; and that's one of the
> > problems I have with his style of one-sided  journalism - there are two
> > sides to most every story and when you concentrate  solely on the
> > negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave  disservice.
> 
> And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as 
> we 
> know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish 
> people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*.

I think many people don't want to publicly state and appear to be
ungrateful.

I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless
because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about
the timeliness now.

If someone actually wanted to get a better view of the opinions, there
are open source polling tools.

> > > If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare  itself these
> > > types of articles...
> > 
> > No.  These types of  articles will continue to appear whether there is a
> > communications "policy"  or not. 
> 
> In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every 
> community project irrespective of governance would get "these" types of 
> articles 
> and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case!

It seems that unless/until the CentOS leaders agree that 3 months on
point releases and 6 months on new releases are a problem then they
aren't likely to try to solve it.

I would agree that this type of article would exist even if there were
better communications offered by CentOS governance.

Speaking only for myself, I am starting to lose faith.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Les Mikesell  wrote:
> On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never 
>>> give me
>>> sufficient information to start a competing rebuild.
>>
>> Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace
>> them?
>
> Why?  Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not
> exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and
> improve_ what they do.  Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do
> closed development.
>
>  > Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that
>> we give to others.
>
> Can you match the resources that Red Hat has?

What's stopping you and others from going to Red Hat and doing what
those who started CentOS did?

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?

[Ron Blizzard]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Craig White  wrote:

> I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless
> because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about
> the timeliness now.

Yeah, "genuinely concerned." And that "concern" is supposedly best
served by bad-mouthing CentOS at every opportunity? Sorry, but I'm not
buying it.

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] rpm libuser-devel is not signed

[Mathieu Baudier]

>> 'yum update' runs into the following error message.
>>
>> Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed
>
> I got this too, there's two ways around it:
>
> 1) Wait until the package is signed and then update.
>
> 2) Run: yum update --nogpgcheck

Other workarounds for this particular issue have just been suggested here:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110547.html
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/110551.html
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos