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, 07:59 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

Dne 19.2.2011 19:10, Larry Vaden napsal(a):
> http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06527 covers SL 6 RC1 for those who
> might want to play with koji.

There is also FrameOS 6.0 http://download.frameos.org/.
DH

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:13 PM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 22:53 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> 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.

That is exactly what I call bs! I suppose will be useless when others
try to replicate Johnies configs. God help them. The fact is what is
true is very true, people want to Replicate the BUILDS. You do not have
all the info you will never unless you hack it all out by your self. It
is not sitting in a car and putting it in drive like some would want you
to think. What the hell maby "lzma" will attach to a few peoples built
binaries then they want install.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 09:55 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/20/2011 12:13 AM, JohnS wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 22:53 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> 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.
> That is exactly what I call bs! I suppose will be useless when others
> try to replicate Johnies configs. God help them. The fact is what is
> true is very true, people want to Replicate the BUILDS. You do not have
> all the info you will never unless you hack it all out by your self. It
> is not sitting in a car and putting it in drive like some would want you
> to think. What the hell maby "lzma" will attach to a few peoples built
> binaries then they want install.
The packages installed on the "hosting" machine are completely
irrelevant when the actual build is taking place in mock. If I were to
show you the output of rpm -qa on my builder you would probably cry
"murder" because I have NEVER used centos on that machine. I have used
Fedora 7, Fedora 10, now it's a RHEL 6. And I have always used mock (
with different configs, of course ) to build for everything from RHEL 3
to RHEL6 and for Fedora since F7 to the current rawhide. So once again,
I reiterate what I have said: the output of rpm -qa on the builder is
completely irrelevant. Actually the whole config of the machine is
irrelevant as long as mock can be used. Even more, Johnny Hughes has
shown you the actual mock configs to be used for a start.
What you probably want to learn is "how to add packages to mock's
build root so as to satisfy the build requires when the spec file is
incorrect and does not include all the BRs which are actually needed".
And I have answered this very problem a couple of hours ago.
OTOH, if you still have not understood what has been told and you
still think that your request is legitimate, you need to take a step
back and start by learning about mock. Even if you still think that
we're bs*ing you.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:00 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/19/2011 04:13 PM, JohnS wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 22:53 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That is exactly what I call bs! I suppose will be useless when others
> try to replicate Johnies configs. God help them. The fact is what is
> true is very true, people want to Replicate the BUILDS. You do not have
> all the info you will never unless you hack it all out by your self. It
> is not sitting in a car and putting it in drive like some would want you
> to think. What the hell maby "lzma" will attach to a few peoples built
> binaries then they want install.

The BUILDS are built in a mock chroot. The version of the OS (centos 4
or centos 5 even) and the packages installed on the that os are
completely irrelevant to the package build.

Please research mock:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock

A brand new root is installed for each and every package that is built.
The packages in the root that is installed is controlled by the SRPM
package that is built, with the minimum build root being controlled by
the package named buildsys-build.

I am sick and tired of people who don't have a clue telling me that I
don't know how to rebuild the OS or that I am not tell you something. I
have told you EXACTLY how to build CentOS extras ... the only difference
for OS would be to not include the extra's repo or the fasttrack repo.

If you can not figure out how to rebuild the OS after the things I just
gave you, then you are an idiot. You are too stupid to be in this
thread. Unplug your dang computer, put it back in the box and ship it
back to where you bought it and give us a freaking break.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:27 PM
Richard McClellan
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Feb 19, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> If you can not figure out how to rebuild the OS after the things I just
> gave you, then you are an idiot. You are too stupid to be in this
> thread. Unplug your dang computer, put it back in the box and ship it
> back to where you bought it and give us a freaking break.


Wow.

I subscribed to this list last week because I was curious to know the status of the CentOS 6 release. My perception of the CentOS release process before joining this list was that it wasn't well described, status updates were not given, and it was somewhat slow and ad hoc. (What was up with the call for votes on 5.6 v. 6? And where were the results posted?) Perceptions can of course be wrong.

Every machine in our company runs CentOS from developer machines, to servers (DHCPd, Bind, Kerberos, etc.) to our cluster and AMIs except for a couple of Solaris and Windows servers. We use CentOS because it is the right price and meets our virtualization requirements unlike some of the other OSes did back when we made the decision to adopt CentOS uniformly. A lot of us miss having the bells and whistles found on Fedora or Ubuntu but it's something we must live with given our IT resources.

So after watching for a week or so--albeit during a tense time in the release cycle--I have some observations and recommendations:
1. Johnny Hughes, you would do CentOS well to mind your words. Or better yet, don't respond to threads asking about the process or release status. Instead, take half a day and write up a description of it.
2. The CentOS process is opaque and secretive. It may indeed be very complex with justifiable restrictions over who can contribute at what level, but the process should be described somewhere. This would also help impartial observers/users of CentOS understand why things take as long as they do. The process and team appear to be dysfunctional to the point that using CentOS may be a risk.
3. A lot of people are frustrated with the level and type of communication from the CentOS inner circle. Increasing the level of communication--including release status--and politeness would be good for CentOS.

A few days on this list was enough to give me a fresh interest in finding an alternative to CentOS.

With that I bid you all good luck and thanks for five year of CentOS.

Rich



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:30 PM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 17:00 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

> Please research mock:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock

I do not need to maybe others do?

> I am sick and tired of people who don't have a clue telling me that I
> don't know how to rebuild the OS or that I am not tell you something. I
> have told you EXACTLY how to build CentOS extras ... the only difference
> for OS would be to not include the extra's repo or the fasttrack repo.

Funny cause I never told you that. I simply asked the rpm version what
the hell is wrong with that?

> If you can not figure out how to rebuild the OS after the things I just
> gave you, then you are an idiot. You are too stupid to be in this
> thread. Unplug your dang computer, put it back in the box and ship it
> back to where you bought it and give us a freaking break.

I think you calling me an Idoit & Stupid will greatly reflect on your
status. Shows how you really are and the way certain "CentOS Project
Members Treat People. Maybe this should reside on Linux-Mag?

You do *NOT* know me from Adams House Cat. You wanna finish this I have
a very personal Inbox.

John

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:32 PM
JohnS
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 00:55 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> Even if you still think that
> we're bs*ing you.

Stop right there..... Wo is this "We Are" in This? Do you have a
@centos.org address?

John

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:43 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/19/2011 05:32 PM, JohnS wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 00:55 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> Even if you still think that
>> we're bs*ing you.
>
> Stop right there..... Wo is this "We Are" in This? Do you have a
> @centos.org address?
>

No, but he has a fedora one:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Wolfy

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:47 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On 02/20/2011 01:32 AM, JohnS wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 00:55 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> Even if you still think that
>> we're bs*ing you.
> Stop right there..... Wo is this "We Are" in This? Do you have a
> @centos.org address?
>
No, I do not. But both Johnny and I are telling you the same thing.
Since it makes two of us, the plural is correct. Unless English grammar
has changed during the last 38 years since I've learnt that part.


> Funny cause I never told you that. I simply asked the rpm version what
> the hell is wrong with that?
>

And it seems that you still did not understand that the versions of
packages from the builder machine are irrelevant.
BTW, what was the "grep rpm" from your command supposed to do ? If
you just wanted the version of the rpm& friends, rpm -qa rpm* would
have done it faster. And a polite " what version of rpm do you use on
the builder ?" would have been a more clear question. Not that the
answer to this question would have had any relevance either wrt the
build process...


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 02-19-2011, 10:52 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default CentOS-4.9 SRPMS

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Richard McClellan <richmc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few days on this list was enough to give me a fresh interest in finding an alternative to CentOS.

Like Dennis Miller, I could be wrong about this, but:

1) it appears that the howto build information has been available all along
2) incomplete/incorrect SRPMS from upstream present the problems
3) the rest is challenging on a case by case basis (figuring out
what's missing from the SRPM and putting said into the build root)
4) apparently even #3 is documented in bug reports to the upstream
5) all of this goes out the door and into the trash with RHEL 6
_______________________________________________
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 06:42 AM.

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