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 03-10-2011, 01:53 PM
Zenon Panoussis
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 11:04 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> The complexity of this stuff is beyond what you are able to parse.

Could you please elaborate?

I don't mean here in reply to this posting. I mean it long-term, in the
bug tracker and also in a publicly accessible git repo of patches and
quirks. As things are now, the dev team has a huge amount of knowledge
on how CentOS is made, but very little of it trickles outside the core
team.

So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
them?

Mind you, I'm not asking you to start writing documentation or do anything
that would take away resources from actually producing CentOS. What I'm
asking is just that you open up the work you're doing anyway, no extra
cost involved.

Doing so would also serve to protect your work in the long term. People
tend to get hit by busses, by marriage, by small children, by new jobs,
you name it. CentOS is so big by now that it deserves protection also
from its own team. If you would disappear one day for whatever reason,
good or bad, others should be able to take over and continue where you
left. Sharing the knowledge creates that protection.

Z


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 02:12 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 04:53 PM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 11:04 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> The complexity of this stuff is beyond what you are able to parse.
> Could you please elaborate?
>
> I don't mean here in reply to this posting. I mean it long-term, in the
> bug tracker and also in a publicly accessible git repo of patches and
> quirks. As things are now, the dev team has a huge amount of knowledge
> on how CentOS is made, but very little of it trickles outside the core
> team.
>
> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
> them?
>
> Mind you, I'm not asking you to start writing documentation or do anything
> that would take away resources from actually producing CentOS. What I'm
> asking is just that you open up the work you're doing anyway, no extra
> cost involved.
Johnny Hughes has already provided the info and the scripts . See
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-February/006735.html
and later messages


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 02:12 PM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Updates from today

Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> On 03/10/2011 11:04 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> The complexity of this stuff is beyond what you are able to parse.
>
> Could you please elaborate?
>
> I don't mean here in reply to this posting. I mean it long-term, in the
> bug tracker and also in a publicly accessible git repo of patches and
> quirks. As things are now, the dev team has a huge amount of knowledge
> on how CentOS is made, but very little of it trickles outside the core
> team.
>
> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
> them?
>

He already said he will document the process once 6.0 is released. read
his mail on this list from 02/23/2011 11:59 AM.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 02:50 PM
Nick Bright
 
Default Updates from today

On 3/10/2011 5:54 AM, Bill Maidment wrote:
>>> If the response to a question regarding "CentOS 6.0 status" only
>>> relates to "GA release of 5.6", then, in spite of the constant
>>> responses to the contrary, there is a discrepancy between "what is
>>> expected from CentOS", and "what is delivered by CentOS". Period. End
>>> of story. Own up to it. Fix it.
>> Take you expectations and your condescending attitude someplace else.
>>
>> You get a free operating system that is enterprise grade when we provide
>> it for you.
>>
>> If you don't like it, don't use it.
>>
>> If you want a service level agreement with guaranteed deliverables, buy one.
>>
> Enough of this slanging match! The professionalism of this list has gone right down the tubes!
>
> Please take the 'Ce' out and make it ntOS. It has nothing to do with Community or Enterprise.
>
> I have decided to take all my servers to Scientific Linux forthwith.
> I will not touch CentOS with a bargepole from now on.
>
> Goodbye
> Bill
</lurk>
<rant>
Get over yourself. Your migration to another OS just because you don't
like to see childish non-contributors bash the hard working volunteers
isn't something that needs to be posted to the development list.

This rant really doesn't belong here either but I hope that people will
still take a deep breath, calm down for a second, and consider the
amount of hard work that all the real devs put in. Having to listen to
all of the whiners criticizing their work over and over again *when they
have already released all of that information*, I can understand why
Johnny would respond that way - and I don't blame him! I respond exactly
the same way then 20th time I've been asked the same question when I've
answered it every time.

Have you ever had a small child pester you while you're trying to cook
dinner? Answer "are we there yet" every 5 minutes on a six hour drive?
That's what you people are doing to the devs!

There is no secret sauce.
The scripts have been publicly released.
The build process has been described in enough detail that anybody
capable of doing it should be able to do it with the information that
has been posted to this list and the CentOS Wiki.
Karanbir has already committed to more documentation once v6 is out the
door.

Knock it off, get over yourselves, have some patience, and stop posting
to this list if you don't have anything positive to contribute.
</rant>
<lurk>

--
-----------------------------------------------
- Nick Bright -
- Network Administrator -
- Valnet Telecommunications -
- Tel 888-332-1616 x 315 / Fax 620-331-0789 -
- Web http://www.valnet.net/ -
-----------------------------------------------
- Are your files safe? -
- Valnet Vault - Secure Cloud Backup -
- More information& 30 day free trial at -
- http://www.valnet.net/services/valnet-vault -
-----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 03:12 PM
Zenon Panoussis
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 04:12 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:

>>> The complexity of this stuff is beyond what you are able to parse.

>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,

> Johnny Hughes has already provided the info and the scripts . See
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-February/006735.html
> and later messages

Are you referring to http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/buildsystem/ and
http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/tmverifyrpms ? Indeed,
I had missed those.

But I was talking about "de-branding and building". For example, it has
been repeated over and over again that most changes are made in the build
root, not in the SRPMS themselves, but where can I find information about
the de-branding which actually *is* done in the SRPMS themselves? I could
find out by installing all the RH SRPMS in one directory and all the CentOS
SRPMS in another and diff'ing the two, but I assume there is already a list
of all the (known) modifications that are needed for de-branding. Has this
list been published somewhere?

Likewise, many of the changes to the build root - hidden dependencies etc -
are likely to have been documented somewhere. Sort of "note to self: need
to install external xyz from Fedora NN before building abc". Couldn't that
documentation be made public and easily accessible?

That last part, "easily accessible", is just as important as "public".
There might be lots of tidbits of information on this list, but finding
them is a drag.

Finally, I can't find any details on the process of comparing RPMs, apart
from tmverifyrpms that you just pointed me to. What needs to be compared,
apart from size? What is the definition of "good" or "good enough"?

If simple things like that, information that already exists, were to be
gathered in one place, the sharing of knowledge that I was talking about
would already be a fact.

Z


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 03:14 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 02:53 PM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
> them?

This is the bit that is most frustrating. You clearly didnt bother
really checking your facts or what you are talking about before going
off and sending an email.

When c6 started off, there was a call for people to get involved - there
were no scripts, there was nothing to share - the idea was that people
would help build the bits. So your assumption that there are things were
not sharing are bogus.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 03:49 PM
Zenon Panoussis
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 05:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:

>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
>> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
>> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
>> them?

> When c6 started off, there was a call for people to get involved - there
> were no scripts, there was nothing to share - the idea was that people
> would help build the bits. So your assumption that there are things were
> not sharing are bogus.

I'm not talking about 6.0 or any release in particular; I am talking about
CentOS.

So what about 5.x? Is there any list of packages needed de-branding? Any
notes about hidden dependencies? Is there anything at all on 5.x that you
could share with us? Or on 4.x for that matter?

Z

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 03:50 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 10:12 AM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2011 04:12 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>
>>>> The complexity of this stuff is beyond what you are able to parse.
>
>>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
>>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
>
>> Johnny Hughes has already provided the info and the scripts . See
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-February/006735.html
>> and later messages
>
> Are you referring to http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/buildsystem/ and
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos-4/4/build/distro/tmverifyrpms ? Indeed,
> I had missed those.
>
> But I was talking about "de-branding and building". For example, it has
> been repeated over and over again that most changes are made in the build
> root, not in the SRPMS themselves, but where can I find information about
> the de-branding which actually *is* done in the SRPMS themselves? I could
> find out by installing all the RH SRPMS in one directory and all the CentOS
> SRPMS in another and diff'ing the two, but I assume there is already a list
> of all the (known) modifications that are needed for de-branding. Has this
> list been published somewhere?
>

Any SRPM modified by CentOS will have a .centos in the name of the SRPM
(that is noted in our FAQ). If it does not have a .centos, it is the
same as upstream. The only exception is the kernel (we modify it not be
signed by a key that says Red Hat, Inc) and we do not rename it as this
will cause 3rd party drivers not to install. (Also noted in our FAQ).
These packages that are CentOS modified are also listed in the release
notes.

http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5#head-b412468e15231f72d472f3aa48c4862f7f83315d

As far as reapplying our patches again to a new SRPM when released from
upstream, that is EXACTLY how I do it. I first install the old CentOS
SRPM. I go to the rpmbuild directory and I move SPECS to SPECS.old and
SOURCES to SOURCES.old. Then I install the new upstream SRPM. I copy
any patches (or other sources) that have "centos" in the name from the
SOURCES.old directory to the SOURCES directory. I then look at the old
spec file and the new spec file in VI using vsplit and copy the portions
that need to be changed into the new spec file (usually add a couple of
centos patches). Then I rpmbuild -bp and see of the patches still
apply. If they do apply, I use mock to build to new SRPM into RPMs ...
if the patches do not apply cleanly I redesign the patches to apply on
this version, then build.

If I need to figure out what changed in the old centos spec file, I will
install the old upstream package and diff it against the original.

There is nothing magic ... if you have the .centos SRPM and the upstream
SRPM, then you have everything I use. If you can set up mock and point
it to the current centos tree, then you have the build system I use.
The host OS I use for the mock builder is CentOS 5, latest updates.


> Likewise, many of the changes to the build root - hidden dependencies etc -
> are likely to have been documented somewhere. Sort of "note to self: need
> to install external xyz from Fedora NN before building abc". Couldn't that
> documentation be made public and easily accessible?

It has been made public:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-February/106570.html

But, you need to understand that the list is fluid. If a package does
not build because of a hidden build requirement, that is a bug. You
have to figure it out to get it to build, but the next time you build
that package you will likely NOT need to change the build root as they
will likely have fixed the issue by then. We first try to build every
package in a mock build root that it builds on it's own ... only if it
fails do we look at why and make changes to the build root. Every time
we do it, it is unique to that specific situation. It is likely never
to be repeated again.

> That last part, "easily accessible", is just as important as "public".
> There might be lots of tidbits of information on this list, but finding
> them is a drag.
>

Why is that important. Red Hat did not tell me how to build it. The
purpose of the CentOS Project is to produce an operating system that you
can choose to use or not to use. It is not to tell someone else how to
produce an operating system. Why should I tell someone how to build a
replacement OS to CentOS. That makes no sense at all.

> Finally, I can't find any details on the process of comparing RPMs, apart
> from tmverifyrpms that you just pointed me to. What needs to be compared,
> apart from size? What is the definition of "good" or "good enough"?
>

The file tells you what we use. It tells you the conditions that
produce a FAIL.

> If simple things like that, information that already exists, were to be
> gathered in one place, the sharing of knowledge that I was talking about
> would already be a fact.



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 03:51 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 04:49 PM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> I'm not talking about 6.0 or any release in particular; I am talking about
> CentOS.

I dont understand what that means, we have an opportunity to do things
in a different way, but you think its not relevant ?

> So what about 5.x? Is there any list of packages needed de-branding? Any
> notes about hidden dependencies? Is there anything at all on 5.x that you
> could share with us? Or on 4.x for that matter?

not really, mirror.c.o has everything you need for 4.x and 5.x

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 03-10-2011, 04:07 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Updates from today

On 03/10/2011 10:49 AM, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2011 05:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>>> So, what I'm saying essentially is this: would you care to make the
>>> de-branding and building process fully open, so that others can copy it,
>>> learn from it, improve upon it, and also contribute back? Would you care
>>> to share your scripts and other wheels, so others won't have to re-invent
>>> them?
>
>> When c6 started off, there was a call for people to get involved - there
>> were no scripts, there was nothing to share - the idea was that people
>> would help build the bits. So your assumption that there are things were
>> not sharing are bogus.
>
> I'm not talking about 6.0 or any release in particular; I am talking about
> CentOS.
>
> So what about 5.x? Is there any list of packages needed de-branding? Any
> notes about hidden dependencies? Is there anything at all on 5.x that you
> could share with us? Or on 4.x for that matter?
>

Every file changed in debranding is in the release notes and has a
.centos in the name.

Do an 'ls *centos*' and you will know.

I already published a list of all the build root changes, in a reply to
you 5 minutes ago.

But, that list is outdated as soon as we release new packages because
they fix things.

An example is the issue we were having today with util-linux on the 5.6
build. Here is the scenario. The QA team did a compare on util-linux
with the upstream RPM and it failed, so we need to rebuild it. I
submitted it for rebuild and it failed to build. Another member of the
QA team finds this:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677452

So, I have 2 choices, I build it with the old gettext or I modify the
SRPM and add the new patch from the bugzilla. Since we have a no change
policy, I built util-linux against a 5.5 tree with all the updates.

We will likely not need to build util-linux again until they make the
change that fixes this issue.

If I listed this on the wiki, I would also have to remember to change it
when it is no longer applicable. It is already listed on the RHEL
bugzilla site, so if I search for it there the next time I have the
problem (if there ever is a next time) it will still be there.


_______________________________________________
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 07:48 AM.

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