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 07-10-2011, 11:31 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Farkas Levente wrote:

>> Why is this a bug? Afaik an epoch of 10 (the C5 rpm) trumps an epoch of
>> 0 (the C6 rpm). 10 > 0 so do not upgrade.
>
> and that's the problem...

Let's see:
unsupported method upstream, right?

It did not irk you enough to file a bug, right?

Fix is trivial, right?

Please -- grow up and stop spreading FUD here. The reset away
of the Epoch is a 'Good Thing' (TM) and it only bites those
using a unsupported path

If you feel strongly, edit the wiki release notes, and be done
with it, Farkas

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 08:26 AM
Farkas Levente
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On 07/11/2011 01:31 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Farkas Levente wrote:
>
>>> Why is this a bug? Afaik an epoch of 10 (the C5 rpm) trumps an epoch of
>>> 0 (the C6 rpm). 10 > 0 so do not upgrade.
>>
>> and that's the problem...
>
> Let's see:
> unsupported method upstream, right?
>
> It did not irk you enough to file a bug, right?
>
> Fix is trivial, right?

unsupported method upstream, right.
working in upstream, right.
working in centos, not.
the centos is compatible with upstream? no.
is it a bug? yes.
so it is a fud? no it was simple a bug report.

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 03:51 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> unsupported method upstream, right.
> working in upstream, right.
> working in centos, not.

I disagree. Let me explain why that is : RHEL and CentOS address very
different userbases. Looking through the sort of posts that make it to
the different mailing lists would make this quite clear. RHEL will work
through support stuff with people, its not that simple on CentOS.

When you say this 'it works upstream', you are changing the definition
of what 'it' might be in comparision to what the definition of 'it' is
in regards to CentOS. To me, 'it' amounts to being able to upgrade from
C5 to C6 or EL5 to EL6, without a wipe+reinstall[1]. And 'it' works in
just about exactly the same way on CentOS as on RHEL - you need to
custom build rpm, its dep chain. then get py26 in place, with yum that
uses that py26 ( on c5 ), then go through 2 reboot cycles in order to
make the process work. At the second boot stage, you need the
centos-release rpm to be replaced. Also important at this stage is that
having a $releasever at '5' does not break your machine, so a manual
choice being needed to come into effect for $releasecer to move to '6'
isnt a bad thing, I'd even venture a bit closer to the edge and say its
a 'feature'.

the fact that it breaks the upgradeany install isnt ideal. Its not a
'supported' mechanism, but then not much is 'supported' within the
centos ecosystem either; and having the flexibility to break your stuff
in ways you find interesting is also a feature in CentOS

I agree with Russ on that lets document this for now, and try to see how
we can resolve the case moving forward ( 6.1 isnt far! ); exactly what
the fix might be is still open to debate a bit. Reintroducting an EPOC
should, please please, be the last resort.

> the centos is compatible with upstream? no.
> is it a bug? yes.
> so it is a fud? no it was simple a bug report.

Did you then file it as a bug report ? And did you either add something
to the RNotes in the wiki ( or propose text that should be added in ? )


- KB

[1]: please do correct me if that seems unreasonable.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-12-2011, 11:14 AM
Farkas Levente
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

first of all my original mail was write in the same style as russ reply
was made. if you handle every mail in such a style the don't expect
different reply.
anyway it seems you (karanbir) change your style and reply as a/all
'user' can expect what's more in style which has useful information (so
it not just a spam to the list).

On 07/11/2011 05:51 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
>> unsupported method upstream, right.
>> working in upstream, right.
>> working in centos, not.
>
> I disagree. Let me explain why that is : RHEL and CentOS address very
> different userbases. Looking through the sort of posts that make it to
> the different mailing lists would make this quite clear. RHEL will work
> through support stuff with people, its not that simple on CentOS.
>
> When you say this 'it works upstream', you are changing the definition
> of what 'it' might be in comparision to what the definition of 'it' is
> in regards to CentOS. To me, 'it' amounts to being able to upgrade from
> C5 to C6 or EL5 to EL6, without a wipe+reinstall[1]. And 'it' works in
> just about exactly the same way on CentOS as on RHEL - you need to
> custom build rpm, its dep chain. then get py26 in place, with yum that
> uses that py26 ( on c5 ), then go through 2 reboot cycles in order to
> make the process work. At the second boot stage, you need the
> centos-release rpm to be replaced. Also important at this stage is that
> having a $releasever at '5' does not break your machine, so a manual
> choice being needed to come into effect for $releasecer to move to '6'
> isnt a bad thing, I'd even venture a bit closer to the edge and say its
> a 'feature'.
>
> the fact that it breaks the upgradeany install isnt ideal. Its not a
> 'supported' mechanism, but then not much is 'supported' within the
> centos ecosystem either; and having the flexibility to break your stuff
> in ways you find interesting is also a feature in CentOS

to define the 'it': what i mean is that from rhel-5.6 to rhel-6.0 the
upgrade is possible. the upgrade do not by definition means "yum update"
what's more imho it's a bad habit to use python code as system command
(even though i'm alos lazy). of course it would be the best if a simple
yum update/upgrade can be working.
but still with upgradeany and rpm itself (in a few step, glibc, rpm
etc.) the upgrade is possible. in most case the reinstall not so simple
and eg in larger server farm with a few hundreds of server it's even
better to create some kind of update mechanism. test it on a few server
and after run on a few hundreds then reinstall them.
so if something is possible with rhel which is not possible with centos
is a bug (of course rpm -Uvh --force can always work:-)

> I agree with Russ on that lets document this for now, and try to see how
> we can resolve the case moving forward ( 6.1 isnt far! ); exactly what
> the fix might be is still open to debate a bit. Reintroducting an EPOC
> should, please please, be the last resort.

agree the original bug was the introduction of epoc in 5.x.

>> the centos is compatible with upstream? no.
>> is it a bug? yes.
>> so it is a fud? no it was simple a bug report.
>
> Did you then file it as a bug report ? And did you either add something
> to the RNotes in the wiki ( or propose text that should be added in ? )

huuuu. this part sounds funny even from russ and even from you. did you
or any centos developer made publicly available any build problem or
it's solution? afaik i was the only one who write a long mail about it
on centos-devel (and SL people made their problems and solution public
on their website). did you or russ fill any bz on rh's website during
the 6.0 rebuild? i fill a few dozens (almost all).
can we know what did you change during the rebuild?
can we know how did you solve the build problems?
no. simple these are hidden somewhere inside the centos build system.
can you/centos accept any help from anyone outside? did you reply any of
original mails? we all know the reason why was the long email thread by
dag about this issue. i just thought i was useless to get into that.
so after that did you really think that i'm the one who not try to share
my knowledge with the community?

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-12-2011, 08:49 PM
Markus Falb
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On 11.7.2011 17:51, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
>> unsupported method upstream, right.
>> working in upstream, right.
>> working in centos, not.

> To me, 'it' amounts to being able to upgrade from
> C5 to C6 or EL5 to EL6, without a wipe+reinstall[1]. And 'it' works in
> just about exactly the same way on CentOS as on RHEL - you need to
> custom build rpm, its dep chain. then get py26 in place, with yum that
> uses that py26 ( on c5 ), then go through 2 reboot cycles in order to
> make the process work. At the second boot stage, you need the
> centos-release rpm to be replaced. Also important at this stage is that
> having a $releasever at '5' does not break your machine, so a manual
> choice being needed to come into effect for $releasecer to move to '6'
> isnt a bad thing, I'd even venture a bit closer to the edge and say its
> a 'feature'.

What happened with the
"aims to be 100% binary compatible"
goal of centos ?

-- Kind Regards, Markus Falb

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-12-2011, 08:52 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On 07/12/2011 11:49 PM, Markus Falb wrote:
> On 11.7.2011 17:51, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> unsupported method upstream, right.
>>> working in upstream, right.
>>> working in centos, not.
>> To me, 'it' amounts to being able to upgrade from
>> C5 to C6 or EL5 to EL6, without a wipe+reinstall[1]. And 'it' works in
>> just about exactly the same way on CentOS as on RHEL - you need to
>> custom build rpm, its dep chain. then get py26 in place, with yum that
>> uses that py26 ( on c5 ), then go through 2 reboot cycles in order to
>> make the process work. At the second boot stage, you need the
>> centos-release rpm to be replaced. Also important at this stage is that
>> having a $releasever at '5' does not break your machine, so a manual
>> choice being needed to come into effect for $releasecer to move to '6'
>> isnt a bad thing, I'd even venture a bit closer to the edge and say its
>> a 'feature'.
> What happened with the
> "aims to be 100% binary compatible"
> goal of centos ?
I am not 100% sure but I'd say we are hit by a side effect of the fact
that centos-release.el5 has epoch = 10 while redhat-release in rhel 5
has none.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 07-12-2011, 09:12 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Markus Falb wrote:

> What happened with the
> "aims to be 100% binary compatible"
> goal of centos ?

not in play ... upstream does not place an offering in the
package namespace of 'centos-release' for obvious reasons

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
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 01:23 PM.

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