On Saturday, March 26, 2011 02:53:19 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
> Does an
> rpmbuild --rebuild of one of the packages in question on a stock RH system
> create a binary that would fail the CentOS QA?
This is the core of the question. As I don't have an RHEL 6 system available
to try, I can't direc
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/26/11 12:44 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> Les, the upstream source RPMs aren't even the "source source" for the
>> upstream build; SRPMS are just a by product of the build of the binaries
>> from source in an SCM (managed by Red Hat's koj
On 3/26/11 12:44 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> Les, the upstream source RPMs aren't even the "source source" for the
> upstream build; SRPMS are just a by product of the build of the binaries from
> source in an SCM (managed by Red Hat's koji), and in theory, given the same
> identical environment t
On Friday, March 25, 2011 09:55:34 pm Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I'm speaking up for our CentOS repackagers here. That kind of
> bootstrapping takes cycles and practice, and double checking. In
> theory, they could. Our CentOS rebuilders have exposed a few
> dependencies for which the SRPM's are no
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/25/11 6:31 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
One has to be cautious about the bootstrap environment, to make sure
that the libraries available in your "mock" or other build
environments are the same libraries. Red Hat seems t
On 3/25/11 6:31 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>>> One has to be cautious about the bootstrap environment, to make sure
>>> that the libraries available in your "mock" or other build
>>> environments are the same libraries. Red Hat seems to be very, very
>>> good about this.
>>
>> It is not that th
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 5:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that
> matched
> their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
On 3/25/2011 5:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
their binaries
>>>
>>> Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
>>> There is no mis-match.
>>
>> I thought the issue causing the delays
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 4:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
>>> their binaries
>>
>> Red Hat's published source is what they use to
On 3/25/2011 4:38 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
>> their binaries
>
> Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
> There is no mis-match.
I thought th
On 03/20/2011 12:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Or, maybe there was back in the days when they released source that matched
> their binaries
Red Hat's published source is what they use to create their binaries.
There is no mis-match.
___
CentOS mailing li
On 3/23/2011 10:40 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
>
> Sometimes looking at the list and the posts, I feel like I am
> watching a group of nuns, talking (speculating) about the life
> issues of Las Vegas showgirls
The showgirls are picky about who they let under the covers. So I
suppose we have to wait f
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>
>> CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst
>> delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past
>> 133 days delay, an all time rec
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme
> wrote:
>>
>> As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working
>> hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel
>> people posting here talking about how unpr
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme
wrote:
>
> As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working
> hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel
> people posting here talking about how unprofessional CentOS is acting
> are completely missing th
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:46AM +, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website:
Trimmed for brevity.
> "This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release."
>
> The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the no
On 23/03/11 03:41, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>
>> CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst
>> delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past
>> 133 days delay, an all time record
> Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released
> their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either.
On the other hand, unlike CentOS, Scientific Linux (SL) is backporting
5.6 security fixes. Indeed, all of the security issues CentOS 5.5 has
right now aren't in SL.
> SL is a fine product
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst
> delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past
> 133 days delay, an all time record (not counting CentOS 2 :-)).
You kee
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> SL did indeed release a 6.0 before CentOS. For all of the other 25
> possible releases, SL released before CentOS on 5 of the 25 times.
Right, but as these numbers reveal, since June 2008 Scientific Linux is
closing the gap with CentOS (or rather, Ce
On 3/22/11 8:23 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:18:31PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes
>> on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped
>> - and they aren't being picky about the
On 03/22/2011 08:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/22/11 8:07 PM, William Hooper wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
production OS, he mention
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:18:31PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes
> on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped
> - and they aren't being picky about the library linkages matching the
> RH binaries like
On 3/22/11 8:07 PM, William Hooper wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
>>> production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like
>>> RH
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
>> production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like
>> RHEL.
>>
>> So I thought instead of going with such
On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto
> production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like
> RHEL.
>
> So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL
> might be more similar in too
On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/20/2011 05:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> .
>> I hope the situation may ch
On 03/21/2011 07:08 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Matthew Feinberg wrote:
>> I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
>> drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
>
> Right. The php53 package is in the upstream vendor's upd
On 03/20/2011 05:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
> competition with
>>
Am 21.03.2011 15:34, schrieb compdoc:
>>> Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursuing Red Hat customers and
>>> offering to support their Red Hat installations cheaper than Read Hat
>>> does. I know a large international technology company which buys RHEL
>>> licenses only for the first year and
>Please, folks -- These are just not CentOS issues -- and the
>commercial player chess-games and interplay not even vaguely
>related to the subject matter which started this thread.
>Please take this elsewhere
Sorry, you're right.
___
CentOS mailing
>I guess this is a free service so you can stop paying Red Hat as soon as
>you plan to migrate to SLES. But they expect you to migrate to SLES in the
>next three years.
>
> So this is not related to OpenSUSE.
When I said opensuse, I was referring to suse. Sorry.
The problem I have is that RHEL an
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Simon Matter wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc wrote:
>>>
>>> RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config
>>> files
>>> and slightly different locations for some config files.
>>>
>>> It's not like one is a drop in repl
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Drew wrote:
>> Did we read the same page? When you buy Novell (SUSE) support for RedHat
>> EL, you will still run your original RedHat EL installation but then
>> update packages rebuilt by Novell. Technically that's the same like adding
>> the CentOS repo config
> Did we read the same page? When you buy Novell (SUSE) support for RedHat
> EL, you will still run your original RedHat EL installation but then
> update packages rebuilt by Novell. Technically that's the same like adding
> the CentOS repo config to your RedHat installation and then install all
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc wrote:
>>
>> RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config
>> files
>> and slightly different locations for some config files.
>>
>> It's not like one is a drop in replacement for the other, so it doesn't
>> make
>> sense to me th
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, compdoc wrote:
>>> Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursuing Red Hat customers and
>>> offering to support their Red Hat installations cheaper than Read Hat
>>> does. I know a large international technology company which buys RHEL
>>> licenses only for the first year and
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, compdoc wrote:
>
> RHEL and opensuse are different - defferent kernels, different config files
> and slightly different locations for some config files.
>
> It's not like one is a drop in replacement for the other, so it doesn't make
> sense to me that a business
>> Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursuing Red Hat customers and
> >offering to support their Red Hat installations cheaper than Read Hat
> >does. I know a large international technology company which buys RHEL
> >licenses only for the first year and then switches to Novell for support
> >af
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Matthew Feinberg wrote:
> I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
> drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
Right. The php53 package is in the upstream vendor's updates, all of
which are held up for CentOS release behind
> On Mon, March 21, 2011 5:51 am, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
>>> On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote:
their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charg
On Mon, March 21, 2011 5:51 am, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
>> On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote:
>>> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
>>> mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charges.
>>
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote:
>> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
>> mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charges.
>> That's basically all oracle is going with unbreakable
I don't see the problem here. I just tested this and it works fine. The
drupal6 package only requires php 5.2 or greater.
This is out of the drupal6-date.spec file
Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0, drupal6-cck, php >= 5.2
You can get php52 or php53 from the IUS repository.
Install the IUS repo from htt
On 3/20/2011 10:44 PM, Marko A. Jennings wrote:
> On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote:
>> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
>> mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charges.
>> That's basically all oracle is going with unbreakabl
On Sun, March 20, 2011 7:29 pm, William Warren wrote:
> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
> mirrors..:) oracle is basically(pardon me here) Centos with charges.
> That's basically all oracle is going with unbreakable Linux.
Not just Oracle. Novell is actively pursui
On 3/20/11 6:59 PM, William Warren wrote:
>
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> oh they mentioned opensuse as part of the kernel patch obfuscation issue
> that was raised..that's probably where opensuse got your attention..but
> their mention of opensuse is jsut to hide the fact th
On 3/20/2011 7:29 PM, compdoc wrote:
>> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
> Somehow a story led me to try opensuse. Sorry, don't know which it was that
> I read.
>
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://
> their changes are really aimed at oracle..the rest is smoke and
Somehow a story led me to try opensuse. Sorry, don't know which it was that
I read.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 3/20/2011 7:11 PM, compdoc wrote:
>> to which news are you referring about ubuntu-wise?
> I meant recent redhat news about the change in how it will deliver code to
> the community. They mentioned opensuse as being a competitor, I believe.
>
>
>
>
> __
> to which news are you referring about ubuntu-wise?
I meant recent redhat news about the change in how it will deliver code to
the community. They mentioned opensuse as being a competitor, I believe.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://
On 3/20/2011 7:00 PM, compdoc wrote:
>> It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
>
> Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried opensuse for
> the first time and I really like it.
>
> I understand the need for stability, but for what I do, having the newest
> (stable) kern
On Mar 20, 2011, at 4:00 PM, compdoc wrote:
>> It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
>
>
> Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried
> opensuse for
> the first time and I really like it.
Yes, PVOPS and over all better Xen tools is a great reason to use
OpenSuse.
>It'll be either Debian or Ubuntu from now on.
Ubuntu makes a great server. But because of recent news I tried opensuse for
the first time and I really like it.
I understand the need for stability, but for what I do, having the newest
(stable) kernel and packages has a greater benefit.
Kernel 2
On 3/20/2011 6:02 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
.
> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
> competition with
> RH
>
On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:52 PM, William Warren wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>>> .
I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct
competition with
RH
for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle o
Le 20/03/2011 21:00, Alain Péan a écrit :
> With no updates since more than three months (for 5.6)
Correction : more than two months...
Alain
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 3/20/2011 3:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> .
>>> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
>>> RH
>>> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
>>> binaries for free.
>> Yes, but patches (suppo
Александр Кириллов wrote:
CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
TANSTAAFL
And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer
from
>> But when the core team refuse to give any update (no news) at all
(black
>> out), since more than one week, I consider this as even less
reliable...
>
> Stop this nonsense, would you? We rehash this same crap every
> few weeks and it's ridiculous.
And this same crap it is.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Alain Péan wrote:
>
> But when the core team refuse to give any update (no news) at all (black
> out), since more than one week, I consider this as even less reliable...
Stop this nonsense, would you? We rehash this same crap every
few we
Le 20/03/2011 19:36, Always Learning a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 20:30 +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>
>> The point is it's probably as easy to lose a "community" if this still
>> matters to the core CentOS team.
>
> Centos offers free and very reliable Linux with free and very reliable
On 3/20/11 1:57 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> .
>> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
>> RH
>> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
>> binaries for free.
>
> Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:30:41PM +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>
> And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer from
> Oracle
> this project is probably dead in the water.
Hahahaha.
Thanks for the chuckle. Do you have an encore performance
pre
.
> I hope the situation may change now with Oracle in direct competition with
> RH
> for RH and RH-based distros user base. BTW Oracle offers installable
> binaries for free.
Yes, but patches (support) cost money, as you might know. Anyway, it
is better to pay for real
RH instead of oracle linux.
On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 20:30 +0300, Александр Кириллов wrote:
> The point is it's probably as easy to lose a "community" if this still
> matters to the core CentOS team.
Centos offers free and very reliable Linux with free and very reliable
updates.
The people providing this free service are vol
>>> CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
>>> owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
>>> wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
>>>
>>> TANSTAAFL
>>
>> And yes I started looking elsewhere and with reasonably priced offer
>> from
>> Oracle
>>> TANSTAAFL
>
>> ... long overdue "free lunch"
>
> I get it -- you dont (or choose not to) understand the written
> word
Yeah, the picture's pretty bleak. The world's climates are changing,
the mammals are taking over, and we all have a brain about the size of a
walnut.
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>>>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2011-03-18-how-to-lose-a-client_N.htm
>>
>> CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
>> owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
>> wan
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
>> stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
>> in EPEL 5 components.
>
> Sad that -- that th
>>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2011-03-18-how-to-lose-a-client_N.htm
>
> CentOS has no clients to whom a contractual duty of support is
> owed. If SLAs, sales engineers, 800 numbers, and such are
> wanted or needed, PLEASE buy a contract from someone
>
> TANSTA
> The unpleasantness of reading continual criticism, from those
> who will not do the minimal local rebuilds, to use the
> packages from a project not affiliated with the CentOS
> project, has pretty effectively driven the CentOS core
> developers away from this mailing list
...
> If a perso
On 20/03/11 15:23, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> There are significant components of the upstream 5.6 release which are
> stuck behind the CentOS 5.6 release process, but are now incorporated
> in EPEL 5 components. In particular, the "php53" package is now
> necessary for the "drupal6" EPEL component
73 matches
Mail list logo
