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 04-12-2011, 10:36 PM
Farkas Levente
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

hi,
i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current
centos-5.6 release:

os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12
kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12
kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12
centos-release-notes-5.5-0

updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386
tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386

os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
etherboot-pxes-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-roms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-roms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-zroms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-zroms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.x86_64
tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.x86_64

anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be
anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be
anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1

in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4
bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4
bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4
ctdb-1.0.112-1.el5_5
ctdb-devel-1.0.112-1.el5_5
gail-1.9.2-3.el5_4
gail-devel-1.9.2-3.el5_4
pax-3.4-2.el5_4
taskjuggler-2.2.0-5.el5_4
vino-2.13.5-9.el5_4

and a lots of updates still missing:
cman-2.0.115-68.el5_6.1
conga-0.12.2-24.el5_6.1
dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4
giflib-4.1.3-7.3.3.el5
glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5
jwhois-3.2.3-12.el5
kexec-tools-1.102pre-126.el5_6.4
libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2
libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1
mod_nss-1.0.8-4.el5_6.1
opensm-3.3.3-1.el5_6.1
openssh-4.3p2-72.el5_6.3
openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4
pango-1.14.9-8.el5_6.2
paps-0.6.6-20.el5
postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6
quota-3.13-5.el5
screen-4.0.3-4.el5
sed-4.1.5-8.el5
spice-xpi-2.2-2.3.el5_6.1
subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.1
subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3
tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6
tzdata-2011d-3.el5
w3m-0.5.1-18.el5
wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_5.3
xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-3
xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5_6

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 10:36 PM
Farkas Levente
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

hi,
i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current
centos-5.6 release:

os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12
kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12
kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12
centos-release-notes-5.5-0

updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386
tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386

os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
etherboot-pxes-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-roms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-roms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-zroms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
etherboot-zroms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64
libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.x86_64
tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64
virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.x86_64

anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be
anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be
anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1

in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4
bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4
bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4
ctdb-1.0.112-1.el5_5
ctdb-devel-1.0.112-1.el5_5
gail-1.9.2-3.el5_4
gail-devel-1.9.2-3.el5_4
pax-3.4-2.el5_4
taskjuggler-2.2.0-5.el5_4
vino-2.13.5-9.el5_4

and a lots of updates still missing:
cman-2.0.115-68.el5_6.1
conga-0.12.2-24.el5_6.1
dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4
giflib-4.1.3-7.3.3.el5
glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5
jwhois-3.2.3-12.el5
kexec-tools-1.102pre-126.el5_6.4
libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2
libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1
mod_nss-1.0.8-4.el5_6.1
opensm-3.3.3-1.el5_6.1
openssh-4.3p2-72.el5_6.3
openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4
pango-1.14.9-8.el5_6.2
paps-0.6.6-20.el5
postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6
quota-3.13-5.el5
screen-4.0.3-4.el5
sed-4.1.5-8.el5
spice-xpi-2.2-2.3.el5_6.1
subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.1
subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3
tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6
tzdata-2011d-3.el5
w3m-0.5.1-18.el5
wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_5.3
xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-3
xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5_6

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-13-2011, 08:30 AM
David Hrbáč
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

Dne 13.4.2011 0:36, Farkas Levente napsal(a):
> hi,
> i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current
> centos-5.6 release:
>
> os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
> kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12
> kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12
> kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12
> centos-release-notes-5.5-0
>
> updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
> libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
> libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
> m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386
> tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386
> virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386
>
Farkas,
thanks for you deep report, quite surprising for me having taken very
long QA time into account.

> os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
should be updates/x86_64.
Thanks,
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 04-13-2011, 09:15 AM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:

> these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?

> these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part
of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded
several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how
CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?

> in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
> release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
> with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them

> and a lots of updates still missing:

you are looking for things that don't exist, e.g.
libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 is 0.8.2-15.el5.3
And Java isn't part of CentOS anymore, AFAIK.

If you do not like the tagging/naming scheme. I'm pretty confident this is
taken from upstreamm, you have to complain there.

Kai


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-13-2011, 09:45 AM
Farkas Levente
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:
>
>> these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
> they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?

they are there. may be you should have to check it again:-)

>> these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
> what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part
> of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded
> several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how
> CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?

it seems you don't read what i wrote. i exactly know how the upgrade works.

>> in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
>> release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
>> with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
> these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them

there is no reason to use wrong dist tag even in older release since
those dist tag
exists in the upstream src.rpm. so i'm not sure it's a bug in 5.6, may
be it was a
bug in older version.

>> and a lots of updates still missing:
>
> you are looking for things that don't exist, e.g.
> libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 is 0.8.2-15.el5.3

there were 2 updates and one of the missing from the updates.

> And Java isn't part of CentOS anymore, AFAIK.

it's simple not true.

> If you do not like the tagging/naming scheme. I'm pretty confident this is
> taken from upstreamm, you have to complain there.

i taken everything from upstream. may be you'd have to check things
before write anything.

--
* Levente* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-13-2011, 10:08 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

Hi Farkas,

Thanks for the report. But I'd like to request you to not CC both the
lists, its a waste of time. And this sort of stuff is much better off in
the bugs.c.o instance.

On 04/12/2011 11:36 PM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
Easy to handle, I'll get that sorted. Ofcourse this wont change on the
install media, just the mirrors.

> updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
I know how this got missed :/ Will write a test to make sure that no
package is released if its already in the tree. Should be fairly trivial.

> os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
same as above.

> anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be
> anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be
> anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1

This is a good point. We had quite a lot of issues getting anaconda to
build and the final builds were actually done by hand. Both the
src.rpm's are in the srpms repo. I do try and keep the two in sync most
times.

> in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
> release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
> with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5<-> .el5_4):

Ned highlighted these issues at the QA stages, but we all felt that
since the packages were already released into an older public repo, we
would leave them as is and the next update for these packages should
move the tag to the right place. or wherever it needs to be.

> and a lots of updates still missing:

I havent dont any matches against your list here, but do know that
there are a lot of updates in the queue behind the src.rpms. There are 5
updates not pushed through as yet:

dhcp
kernel
openoffice.org
glibc
spice_xpi

Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out
as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still
needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release.

Thanks

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 04-13-2011, 11:07 AM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

On 04/13/2011 04:45 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
>> Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:
>>
>>> these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
>> they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?
>
> they are there. may be you should have to check it again:-)
>
>>> these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
>> what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part
>> of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded
>> several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how
>> CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?
>
> it seems you don't read what i wrote. i exactly know how the upgrade works.
>
>>> in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
>>> release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
>>> with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
>> these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them
>
> there is no reason to use wrong dist tag even in older release since
> those dist tag
> exists in the upstream src.rpm. so i'm not sure it's a bug in 5.6, may
> be it was a
> bug in older version.

The dist tag does NOT exist in the SRPM (that is, it is NOT hard coded
in the the SRPM), it is the variable "dist" and it set by the build
system. This is another example of upstream releasing several updates
at the same time that were not really built at the same time and/or not
built on the same system and/or the dist variable is somehow set
dynamically an not normally by the build system. This requires the
CentOS team to build these packages as "one off" builds with a special
dist set in our build system. Sometimes we get it wrong as our updates
are built and tested in an automated fashion then we check them by hand
and deploy. If "dist" was hard coded, then we would have the correct one.

We are aware of the older released dist tag issues. However, there is
NO WAY to fix it until an upstream update occurs. This is because
.el5_4 is newer than .el5 ... we therefore can not replace .el5_4 with
.el5 until there is a version bump upstream.

The dist tag being different is not something to be concerned about.

<snip>

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-13-2011, 01:31 PM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:45:07 +0200:

> they are there. may be you should have to check it again:-)

you are right, I didn't get it with yum list.

Kai


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-15-2011, 05:10 PM
Charlie Brady
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> > anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be
> > anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be
> > anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1
>
> This is a good point. We had quite a lot of issues getting anaconda to
> build and the final builds were actually done by hand.

That's quite worrying. Are the precise steps you took to "build by hand"
recorded anywhere? Are the numerous issues you had in getting anaconda to
build recorded, e.g. in a bug tracker?

> Both the src.rpm's are in the srpms repo. I do try and keep the two in
> sync most times.

"most times", eh?

> Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out
> as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still
> needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release.

Do you have a new ETA for release of the SRPMS?

Thanks.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 04-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Charlie Brady
 
Default problems in centos-5.6

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Farkas Levente wrote:

> in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier
> release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild
> with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
> bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4
> bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4
> bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4
...

I think this:

nspr-4.8.6-1.el5.i386.rpm

should be:

nspr-4.8.6-1.el5_6.i386.rpm

so that it can displace this from 5.5 updates:

nspr-4.8.6-1.el5_5.i386.rpm
_______________________________________________
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 04:00 AM.

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