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 11-01-2011, 02:50 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On 11/01/2011 03:47 PM, Digimer wrote:
> Personally, I'd prefer to keep CR separate and have the main releases as
> they've been.

with the point release going into /6.x/ you will have the option to keep
things as they are as well. Would that cover your use case ? it would
allow you to do the point release switch manually, whenever you chose to
do so.

> The idea behind CentOS is that it is super stable and matches upstream.
> I worry that merging CR will hurt the stability. I've enabled CR on some
> test nodes and started seeing issues, minor though they may be.

I hope you are opening bug reports for these issues!

- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-01-2011, 02:57 PM
Digimer
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On 11/01/2011 11:50 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 03:47 PM, Digimer wrote:
>> Personally, I'd prefer to keep CR separate and have the main releases as
>> they've been.
>
> with the point release going into /6.x/ you will have the option to keep
> things as they are as well. Would that cover your use case ? it would
> allow you to do the point release switch manually, whenever you chose to
> do so.

So long as I can do a 'yum update' and not get the next y-stream
packages until the actual y-stream is released proper, I am happy. In
other words, so long as the stability of my nodes is not effected in any
way, and compatibility with upstream also remains, I am happy.

>> The idea behind CentOS is that it is super stable and matches upstream.
>> I worry that merging CR will hurt the stability. I've enabled CR on some
>> test nodes and started seeing issues, minor though they may be.
>
> I hope you are opening bug reports for these issues!

I'm ashamed to say that I neglected to do so. I saw kernel oopses while
working on other things and didn't get back to them... I'll be sure to
file a bug next I see it.

--
Digimer
E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com
Freenode handle: digimer
Papers and Projects: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
"omg my singularity battery is dead again.
stupid hawking radiation." - epitron
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-01-2011, 03:12 PM
William Hooper
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>
> what this means is that /6/ will point at the most recent release of
> 6.X/ for the os/ & isos/ repo. The other repos would be local to the /6/
> symlink, and will be always updated ( and stay that way ).

Just so I have it straight:

- OS won't change from the way it is handled today
- Updated packages between point releases still go to Updates
- Packages that are part of the next point release (that are going
into CR now) will instead go into Updates under the new plan
- When a point release comes out, OS changes to the new point release
and Updates gets a cleanup to remove CR and Updates that are part of
the new point release
- Cycle repeats

It seems to me that as long as you are doing any network installs just
from the OS tree, it shouldn't change from the way it is today. Under
the new plan, everyone is basically opting in to receive the CR
updates. I assume the comments about needing more space to mirror is
because the CR tree basically replaces a large portion of the OS tree?

--
William Hooper
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-01-2011, 03:19 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Digimer <linux@alteeve.com> wrote:
>
> So long as I can do a 'yum update' and not get the next y-stream
> packages until the actual y-stream is released proper,

But you also don't get potentially critical security updates until the
full release. That is, yum update won't give you anything.

> I am happy. In
> other words, so long as the stability of my nodes is not effected in any
> way, and compatibility with upstream also remains, I am happy.

What stability problems would you expect from updates beyond a point
release? The whole point of an 'enterprise' distribution is the
effort they make to not break api's across a whole major-rev's life.
Would an upstream system break if you selectively update packages
beyond a point release without doing a full update?

> I'm ashamed to say that I neglected to do so. I saw kernel oopses while
> working on other things and didn't get back to them... I'll be sure to
> file a bug next I see it.

That's ummm, strange. Wouldn't you be running that kernel even if the
whole release had been completed?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com'
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-01-2011, 03:37 PM
Digimer
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On 11/01/2011 12:19 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Digimer <linux@alteeve.com> wrote:
>>
>> So long as I can do a 'yum update' and not get the next y-stream
>> packages until the actual y-stream is released proper,
>
> But you also don't get potentially critical security updates until the
> full release. That is, yum update won't give you anything.

Having critical updates available in CR gives me the opportunity to,
when I deem it sufficiently critical, to manually pull the package (and
it's dependencies) down *or* enabling the CR repo entirely.

>> I am happy. In
>> other words, so long as the stability of my nodes is not effected in any
>> way, and compatibility with upstream also remains, I am happy.
>
> What stability problems would you expect from updates beyond a point
> release? The whole point of an 'enterprise' distribution is the
> effort they make to not break api's across a whole major-rev's life.
> Would an upstream system break if you selectively update packages
> beyond a point release without doing a full update?

As I mentioned earlier, after enabling CR I started seeing kernel
oopses. I will need to be more diligent when I see the error next time
and submit a bug report.

>> I'm ashamed to say that I neglected to do so. I saw kernel oopses while
>> working on other things and didn't get back to them... I'll be sure to
>> file a bug next I see it.
>
> That's ummm, strange. Wouldn't you be running that kernel even if the
> whole release had been completed?

I really can't say, as I said, I wasn't sufficiently diligent at the
time as I was fighting another fire. I do believe the kernel was
upgraded when I went to the CR repo though. I'll build up another pair
of machines and see if I can reproduce the issue tomorrow.

--
Digimer
E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com
Freenode handle: digimer
Papers and Projects: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
"omg my singularity battery is dead again.
stupid hawking radiation." - epitron
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-01-2011, 03:58 PM
Kevin Stange
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On 11/01/2011 09:15 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> We are still in the early days of CentOS-6, and perhaps a change in
> policy at this time might be acceptable. I'd like to propose moving the
> CR repo into the mainline repos. So the change I'm proposing is :
>
> - to have a /6/ release that is always updated.
>
> - to have the /6.X/ releases that are contained to within that point release
>
> what this means is that /6/ will point at the most recent release of
> 6.X/ for the os/ & isos/ repo. The other repos would be local to the /6/
> symlink, and will be always updated ( and stay that way ).
>
> there is going to be quite a lot of implications backend / mirror side
> that we will need to work out, but its effort + pain as a one off, for
> what can be a major improvement in the user experience.

I am absolutely in favor of a "continuous release" CentOS 6 that's
permanent. For a lot of CentOS users, I think there's no real advantage
to holding back between minor versions and this avoids the need for
users to knowingly opt-in to retain access to constant security updates.

We don't really need updated media since our kickstart files always just
pull in the updates repo (and now CR also). Updated media as a slower
process in the background is fine with my company.

As a mirror we certainly have the space to do this. I would hope this
can be done with hard-linking to reduce the space demands on others
where space is more of an issue.

--
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast Networks
http://steadfast.net
Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-02-2011, 02:38 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:19:31 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> What stability problems would you expect from updates beyond a point
> release? The whole point of an 'enterprise' distribution is the
> effort they make to not break api's across a whole major-rev's life.
> Would an upstream system break if you selectively update packages
> beyond a point release without doing a full update?

If the absolute ABI didn't occasionally break from upstream, Scientific Linux would likely not do point releases the way that they do them.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-02-2011, 04:08 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:19:31 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> What stability problems would you expect from updates beyond a point
>> release? *The whole point of an 'enterprise' distribution is the
>> effort they make to not break api's across a whole major-rev's life.
>> Would an upstream system break if you selectively update packages
>> beyond a point release without doing a full update?
>
> If the absolute ABI didn't occasionally break from upstream, Scientific Linux would likely not do point releases the way that they do them.
>

What do you mean? They do point releases so you have the option to
install something that is not horribly out of date. I thought they
rolled out updates into the new point release as they built them, not
waiting for a complete set and install media - and that they had
always done it that way so there was no expectation of getting updates
otherwise. That is, they set up the mechanism before anyone could
know whether point releases would break working 3rd party binaries or
not. But not having such breakage is the main reason to be running
RHEL or a clone. If rebuilding from the stock source produces an
incompatible binary, that is something else.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-18-2011, 06:58 PM
Greg Lindahl
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

> What stability problems would you expect from updates beyond a point
> release? The whole point of an 'enterprise' distribution is the
> effort they make to not break api's across a whole major-rev's life.
> Would an upstream system break if you selectively update packages
> beyond a point release without doing a full update?

Upstream backports big chunks of kernel code into point releases,
changing the kernel api/abi. You'll notice this if you have special
HPC hardware which need updated kernel modules. You'll also notice
this if you really care about performance. We carefully test
point-release kernels and only do casual testing of intermediate
kernels, because the intermediate kernels are the only ones with small
changes. (Ditto for HPC hardware vendors...)

Upstream sometimes does big updates of a few user-space rpms in point
releases, because it has become too hard to backport security fixes.
Firefix is a common example, and there are others. These sorts of
changes usually don't happen in an intermediate update.

Upstream has never tested the combination of packages available in CR.
It's easily possible that package A depends on package B being updated
to avoid an obscure bug, but the CR only has A's update. Gentoo users
are quite familiar with this issue.

It is likely that many CentOS users think they aren't bothered by
these issues, but CentOS is used in a lot of production environments,
and I bet there will be some surprises.

-- greg

p.s. Thanks for producing such a good distro!


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-19-2011, 08:23 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default moving the CR repo into mainstream release

On 11/18/2011 07:58 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> Upstream has never tested the combination of packages available in CR.

if you look at the rhn experience for most people - its actually quite
in line with the CR/ process - as if it were just one release moving
along with point-in-time install media being made available. Otoh, its
been a long time since i did anything with rhn, have things changed ?

> It's easily possible that package A depends on package B being updated
> to avoid an obscure bug, but the CR only has A's update. Gentoo users
> are quite familiar with this issue.

if CR/ was composed of every and all updates, would that issue be
reduced to some extent ? completely removed ?

Also, keep in mind that people can opt out of the process and lock their
machines into a point release ( eg. lock into 6.1, and only move to 6.2
when they want to ). So it would still be possible for people to control
at that level. Its just that rather than this being the default, it
becomes the opt-in process.

> It is likely that many CentOS users think they aren't bothered by
> these issues, but CentOS is used in a lot of production environments,
> and I bet there will be some surprises.

Thats the thing we want to reduce.

- KB
_______________________________________________
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 10:44 AM.

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