FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-19-2011, 03:23 PM
Greg Bailey
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 04:58 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> It seems Red Hat is not releasing media for the 4.9 release, so this
>> seems to be just a bunch of updates that is going into the tree. Based
>> on the SRPMS listed here:
>>
>> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os/SRPMS/
>>
>> And the current CentOS 4.8+updates SRPMS here:
>>
>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/os/SRPMS/
>>
>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4.8/updates/SRPMS/
>>
>> This is the list of SRPMS I have started building:
>>
>> autofs-4.1.3-240.src.rpm
>> autofs5-5.0.1-0.rc2.114.src.rpm
>> bash-3.0-27.el4.src.rpm
>> bind-9.2.4-37.el4.src.rpm
>> centos-release-4-9.src.rpm
>> comps-4AS-0.20110202.src.rpm
>> coreutils-5.2.1-37.el4.src.rpm
>> device-mapper-1.02.28-3.el4.src.rpm
>> device-mapper-multipath-0.4.5-42.el4.src.rpm
>> glibc-2.3.4-2.54.src.rpm
>> gnome-volume-manager-1.1.0-9.src.rpm
>> hal-0.4.2-9.el4_8.src.rpm
>> httpd-2.0.52-47.ent.centos4.src.rpm
>> hwdata-0.146.33.EL-19.src.rpm
>> iscsi-initiator-utils-4.0.3.0-10.src.rpm
>> kernel-2.6.9-100.EL.src.rpm
>> kernel-utils-2.4-23.el4.src.rpm
>> lvm2-2.02.42-9.el4.src.rpm
>> net-snmp-5.1.2-20.el4.src.rpm
>> nfs-utils-1.0.6-94.EL4.src.rpm
>> nss_ldap-253-16.el4.src.rpm
>> numactl-0.6.4-1.44.src.rpm
>> procps-3.2.3-8.21.src.rpm
>> python-2.3.4-14.9.el4.src.rpm
>> quota-3.12-9.el4.src.rpm
>> redhat-release-4AS-10.src.rpm
>> rhnlib-2.1.4-17.el4_8.1.src.rpm
>> rhpl-0.148.6-2.src.rpm
>> rpmdb-redhat-4-0.20110202.src.rpm
>> samba-3.0.33-0.29.el4.src.rpm
>> sendmail-8.13.1-6.el4.src.rpm
>> sysklogd-1.4.1-30.el4.src.rpm
>> sysstat-5.0.5-27.el4.src.rpm
>> system-config-lvm-1.1.4-4.el4.src.rpm
>> system-config-network-1.3.22.0.EL.4.6-4.el4.src.rpm
>> systemtap-1.3-5.el4.src.rpm
>> tmpwatch-2.9.1-1.el4.2.src.rpm
>> udev-039-10.30.el4.src.rpm
>> up2date-4.9.1-29.el4.centos.src.rpm
>> util-linux-2.12a-28.el4.src.rpm
>> xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.66.src.rpm
>>
>> If there is more than one SRPM of the same package, I only took the
>> latest SRPM.
>>
>> Can I get a couple of you guys to verify my SRPM list?
>>
>> Note: The Red Hat FTP site is all updates since the release of RHEL
>> 4.0. The CentOS 4.8 SRPMS are the ones on the 4.8 ISOs and the updates
>> are those SRPMS updated since the release of 4.8. We are only
>> interested in the newest SRPMS for each app.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Johnny Hughes
>>
>
>
> I hear crickets ... where are all the community people who want to help?
>
>

OK, this morning's programming project is a python script to
automatically generate your list. I get:

Missing in CentOS (no existing CentOS builds found; these are probably
expected):

elilo-3.4-12.el4.src.rpm
ethereal-0.99.0-EL4.2.src.rpm
gaim-1.5.0-12.el4.src.rpm
iprutils-2.2.8-6.el4.src.rpm
libehca-1.2-1.el4.src.rpm
libpfm-3.0-12_EL.src.rpm
libunwind-0.98.2-3.el4.src.rpm
mcelog-0.4-1.13.EL.src.rpm
modversions-1.0-4.el4_6.1.src.rpm
mozilla-1.7.13-1.4.1.src.rpm
openCryptoki-2.1.6-0.40.6.src.rpm
pfmon-3.0-12.src.rpm
ppc64-utils-0.8-2.src.rpm
redhat-release-4WS-2.src.rpm
rpmdb-redhat-4-0.20110202.src.rpm
s390utils-1.3.2-3.el4.src.rpm
salinfo-0.5-1.13.src.rpm
sysreport-1.3.15-8.src.rpm
udapl-1.2-0.4265.2.EL4.src.rpm
xenpv-0.1-10.el4.src.rpm
yaboot-1.3.12-7.6.src.rpm

Need rebuild in CentOS:

autofs-4.1.3-240.src.rpm
autofs5-5.0.1-0.rc2.114.src.rpm
bash-3.0-27.el4.src.rpm
bind-9.2.4-37.el4.src.rpm
coreutils-5.2.1-37.el4.src.rpm
devhelp-0.10-0.10.el4.src.rpm
device-mapper-1.02.28-3.el4.src.rpm
device-mapper-multipath-0.4.5-42.el4.src.rpm
dosfstools-2.8-20.src.rpm
evolution28-gtk2-2.10.4-25.el4.1.src.rpm
ftp-0.17-25.el4.src.rpm
glibc-2.3.4-2.54.src.rpm
gnome-volume-manager-1.1.0-9.src.rpm
gnupg-1.2.6-9.el4_8.1.src.rpm
hal-0.4.2-9.el4_8.src.rpm
httpd-2.0.52-47.ent.src.rpm
hwdata-0.146.33.EL-19.src.rpm
indexhtml-4.1-1.src.rpm
initscripts-7.93.35-1.el4_8.src.rpm
iscsi-initiator-utils-4.0.3.0-10.src.rpm
kdelibs-3.3.1-17.el4_8.1.src.rpm
kernel-2.6.9-100.EL.src.rpm
kernel-utils-2.4-23.el4.src.rpm
lvm2-2.02.42-9.el4.src.rpm
mpitests-3.1-5.el4.src.rpm
net-snmp-5.1.2-20.el4.src.rpm
net-tools-1.60-40.el4.src.rpm
nfs-utils-1.0.6-94.EL4.src.rpm
nss_ldap-253-16.el4.src.rpm
ntp-4.2.0.a.20040617-12.el4.src.rpm
numactl-0.6.4-1.44.src.rpm
pexpect-2.3-2.el4.src.rpm
pidgin-2.6.6-5.el4_8.src.rpm
procps-3.2.3-8.21.src.rpm
python-2.3.4-14.9.el4.src.rpm
quota-3.12-9.el4.src.rpm
rhnlib-2.1.4-17.el4_8.1.src.rpm
rhpl-0.148.6-2.src.rpm
samba-3.0.33-0.29.el4.src.rpm
seamonkey-1.0.9-66.el4_8.src.rpm
sendmail-8.13.1-6.el4.src.rpm
squirrelmail-1.4.8-5.el4_8.8.src.rpm
sysklogd-1.4.1-30.el4.src.rpm
syslinux-2.11-2.src.rpm
sysstat-5.0.5-27.el4.src.rpm
system-config-lvm-1.1.4-4.el4.src.rpm
system-config-network-1.3.22.0.EL.4.6-4.el4.src.rpm
systemtap-1.3-5.el4.src.rpm
tmpwatch-2.9.1-1.el4.2.src.rpm
udev-039-10.30.el4.src.rpm
up2date-4.9.1-29.el4.src.rpm
util-linux-2.12a-28.el4.src.rpm
vnc-4.0-12.el4_7.1.src.rpm
xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.66.src.rpm

Using pidgin as an example, looks like CentOS has 2.6.6-5.el4, but Red
Hat has 2.6.6-5.el4_8. Is that expected?

-Greg

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 03:30 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Greg Bailey <gbailey@lxpro.com> wrote:
>
> OK, this morning's programming project is a python script to
> automatically generate your list. *I get:

Congratulations!

Now that you are at the head of the class, may we see your python script?
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 03:46 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Saturday, February 19, 2011 11:09:43 am js wrote:
> If yes, when a member find the problem, he can upload the srpm with the
> patch and let you rebuild it on a "genuine" centos.org

I think you missed Johnny's earlier point: the SRPM should not need patching to build, and in fact except for those packages that have to be patched to remove trademarks the CentOS SRPMs aren't patched in order to build; the build system is patched.

In other words, a patched SRPM won't (and shouldn't!) be accepted; a pointer to what is needed to make a package build correctly might be. The goal is to put vanilla Red Hat SRPMS in and get CentOS binary RPMs out without patching the SRPM in any way, shape, or form (again, except for trademarks/artwork/branding). I took that as axiomatic until seeing Johnny's post this morning, and then the light came on that some people simply aren't understanding what I 'just knew' all along.

And at this point, I don't think any of the CentOS gurus (there are more than one) need a whole lot of help in the C6 buildsystem (I reserve the right to be wrong should a CentOS core dev say so), and the C5 and C4 buildsystems are in maintenance mode. For C6 it's a matter of churning through the build and tweaking the build scripts (or order, or buildhost package versions, or whatnot).

Johnny asked for some specific help with the updates for C4u9 (I really don't like the point version notation, since upstream doesn't use that; you can't go to Red Hat and order 'RHEL 4.9' for instance; you order RHEL4, and get update 9's packages through RHN). There is a case where some grunt work is needed that could genuinely help C4 get its updates faster, but I guess that's not 'glamorous' enough for people....
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 04:02 PM
js
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

Le 19/02/11 20:46, Lamar Owen a écrit :
> On Saturday, February 19, 2011 11:09:43 am js wrote:
>> If yes, when a member find the problem, he can upload the srpm with the
>> patch and let you rebuild it on a "genuine" centos.org
> I think you missed Johnny's earlier point: the SRPM should not need patching to build, and in fact except for those packages that have to be patched to remove trademarks the CentOS SRPMs aren't patched in order to build; the build system is patched.
Hello,
I'm curious how you can patch the build system.
> In other words, a patched SRPM won't (and shouldn't!) be accepted; a pointer to what is needed to make a package build correctly might be. The goal is to put vanilla Red Hat SRPMS in and get CentOS binary RPMs out without patching the SRPM in any way, shape, or form (again, except for trademarks/artwork/branding). I took that as axiomatic until seeing Johnny's post this morning, and then the light came on that some people simply aren't understanding what I 'just knew' all along.
>
I don't remember (I think it was for Centos4 I think), but Centos fix a
bug that was present in RHEL4;
So ... sometimes you have no choice; you need to add a patch and hope it
will no have consequences.

> And at this point, I don't think any of the CentOS gurus (there are more than one) need a whole lot of help in the C6 buildsystem (I reserve the right to be wrong should a CentOS core dev say so), and the C5 and C4 buildsystems are in maintenance mode. For C6 it's a matter of churning through the build and tweaking the build scripts (or order, or buildhost package versions, or whatnot).
>
> Johnny asked for some specific help with the updates for C4u9 (I really don't like the point version notation, since upstream doesn't use that; you can't go to Red Hat and order 'RHEL 4.9' for instance; you order RHEL4, and get update 9's packages through RHN). There is a case where some grunt work is needed that could genuinely help C4 get its updates faster, but I guess that's not 'glamorous' enough for people....

That make sense,
So Centos, because of that, need to be like it is today... because this
is only a "perfect clone of RHEL" :-/

but it will be very useful to be able to reproduce the build env anyway;
seems to be a recurrent request.

Regards,

js.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 04:06 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/19/2011 07:02 PM, js wrote:
> Le 19/02/11 20:46, Lamar Owen a écrit :
>> On Saturday, February 19, 2011 11:09:43 am js wrote:
>>> If yes, when a member find the problem, he can upload the srpm with the
>>> patch and let you rebuild it on a "genuine" centos.org
>> I think you missed Johnny's earlier point: the SRPM should not need patching to build, and in fact except for those packages that have to be patched to remove trademarks the CentOS SRPMs aren't patched in order to build; the build system is patched.
> Hello,
> I'm curious how you can patch the build system.
here is a hint:
config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'install buildsys-build'
#config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'groupinstall buildsys-build'


>> In other words, a patched SRPM won't (and shouldn't!) be accepted; a pointer to what is needed to make a package build correctly might be. The goal is to put vanilla Red Hat SRPMS in and get CentOS binary RPMs out without patching the SRPM in any way, shape, or form (again, except for trademarks/artwork/branding). I took that as axiomatic until seeing Johnny's post this morning, and then the light came on that some people simply aren't understanding what I 'just knew' all along.
>>
> I don't remember (I think it was for Centos4 I think), but Centos fix a
> bug that was present in RHEL4;
Indeed there existed a very faulty kernel. But the version patched by
Johny never ended in the main centos repos, it was published outside of
it . And it was meant as a temporary workaround to be used until RH came
with the fixed rpm




_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Saturday, February 19, 2011 12:02:07 pm js wrote:
> I'm curious how you can patch the build system.

There have been pointers to the buildsys RPM's on dev.centos.org before (and there have been some odd statements around them, but you'll need to look through the archives of the mailing lists to really get those (and I'm not sure I understand all of what's said about that....)).

You'll find it educational to look and see what is and is not in those RPM's. I'm not going to give you a step-by-step for that, not because it's secret sauce, but, as in making good smooth bacon gravy, you have to try it yourself, and then you'll understand. (yes, I can make gravy, and while there aren't really any secret ingredients in gravy (the list: bacon grease, enough self-rising flour to absorb almost all of the grease, milk, and a pinch of salt and pepper) it's all in the way it's mixed, and you have to learn that by feel.) The rpm command gives you all the tools you need to look at what is, and is not, found in the buildsys RPM's hosted on dev.centos.org (see http://dev.centos.org/centos/buildsys/5/buildsys-build-0.5-6.el5.centos.7.noarch.rpm )

But do note Karanbir's note at http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2010-May/005545.html

I'm still digesting what that means, but, given the age of the buildsys-build RPM's on dev.centos.org (IE: they're old!) makes me wonder. And, well, if Karanbir and whomever else want to keep secret sauces or techniques, that's their choice, honestly.

Patching the buildsystem starts with patching that RPM, assuming that RPM has anything to do with the current build process..... While that is far from the only piece of the build system, it is the key piece, since it describes what the minimum buildroot for mock looks like.

Then what wolfy wrote on this thread as well; digest that, and play with it.

> I don't remember (I think it was for Centos4 I think), but Centos fix a
> bug that was present in RHEL4;
> So ... sometimes you have no choice; you need to add a patch and hope it
> will no have consequences.

Well, that's why I say it's a goal to have no patches; if you have to patch you have to patch, just means you missed your goal on that package.

> That make sense,
> So Centos, because of that, need to be like it is today... because this
> is only a "perfect clone of RHEL" :-/

Yep.

> but it will be very useful to be able to reproduce the build env anyway;
> seems to be a recurrent request.

Going forward, reproducing the upstream builds (really, that's what we're after anyway, not a rebuild of a rebuild) will involve koji, as that's the tool built for the task. It is not a small tool.

But, as a fnal note (typo/pun intended), please read what Troy has to say in
http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1011&L=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL&P=R531&I=-3

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 05:10 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
>
> But, as a fnal note (typo/pun intended), please read what Troy has to say in
> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1011&L=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL&P=R531&I=-3

http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06527 covers SL 6 RC1 for those who
might want to play with koji.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 05:14 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/19/2011 11:02 AM, js wrote:
> Le 19/02/11 20:46, Lamar Owen a écrit :
>> On Saturday, February 19, 2011 11:09:43 am js wrote:
>>> If yes, when a member find the problem, he can upload the srpm with the
>>> patch and let you rebuild it on a "genuine" centos.org
>> I think you missed Johnny's earlier point: the SRPM should not need patching to build, and in fact except for those packages that have to be patched to remove trademarks the CentOS SRPMs aren't patched in order to build; the build system is patched.
> Hello,
> I'm curious how you can patch the build system.
>> In other words, a patched SRPM won't (and shouldn't!) be accepted; a pointer to what is needed to make a package build correctly might be. The goal is to put vanilla Red Hat SRPMS in and get CentOS binary RPMs out without patching the SRPM in any way, shape, or form (again, except for trademarks/artwork/branding). I took that as axiomatic until seeing Johnny's post this morning, and then the light came on that some people simply aren't understanding what I 'just knew' all along.
>>
> I don't remember (I think it was for Centos4 I think), but Centos fix a
> bug that was present in RHEL4;
> So ... sometimes you have no choice; you need to add a patch and hope it
> will no have consequences.
>
>> And at this point, I don't think any of the CentOS gurus (there are more than one) need a whole lot of help in the C6 buildsystem (I reserve the right to be wrong should a CentOS core dev say so), and the C5 and C4 buildsystems are in maintenance mode. For C6 it's a matter of churning through the build and tweaking the build scripts (or order, or buildhost package versions, or whatnot).
>>
>> Johnny asked for some specific help with the updates for C4u9 (I really don't like the point version notation, since upstream doesn't use that; you can't go to Red Hat and order 'RHEL 4.9' for instance; you order RHEL4, and get update 9's packages through RHN). There is a case where some grunt work is needed that could genuinely help C4 get its updates faster, but I guess that's not 'glamorous' enough for people....
>
> That make sense,
> So Centos, because of that, need to be like it is today... because this
> is only a "perfect clone of RHEL" :-/
>
> but it will be very useful to be able to reproduce the build env anyway;
> seems to be a recurrent request.

The build environment is a staged install of CentOS. And mock. Every
buildroot is created with a command to mock.

Here is an example scripts that I use to build "staged" extra's stuff
for CentOS5:

http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/buildsystem/

You will notice there is nothing particularly special about any of that.

It just uses a local file: dir in the config, there is a createrepo in
the build script between packages if it builds successfully.

The cfg files are the mock configs, the other files are the build
scripts (the generate script creates some "lock files" in a list
directory so we can have more than one machine build against the same
directory of SRPMS. It orders them in reverse date order (build oldest
file first).

There is no magic here.

Once built ... we use the tmverifyrpms against it from here:

http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/

The RPM either passes or fails the link test, the files test, and the
size test ... if it fails, we figure out why and fix it.

Not sure what else you are looking for.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 06:05 PM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 12:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

>
> Not sure what else you are looking for.

Here's a start:

rpm -qa|grep rpm from the actual build machine.

John

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 07:53 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/19/2011 09:05 PM, JohnS wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 12:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> Not sure what else you are looking for.
> Here's a start:
>
> rpm -qa|grep rpm from the actual build machine.
the output of the above command is completely useless. yum install mock
will take you to the exact situation that you need.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org