On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> ok, so I put some dates up at http://wiki.centos.org/KaranbirSingh/5.2
>
> Essentially, 25th is the last date that I am still looking at backlog and
> mod's etc. After that its basically just all builders go, get the packages
> into the -qa target. Once that is done - install media.
>
> this plan gives the -qa guys 6 days to look at stuff. Which should be enough
> ?
My feeling is that 6 days is going to be to short especially when some
of us are going to be at Linuxtag between the 28th and the 31th.
10 days sounds like a more reasonable estimate to me. But it will also
depend on how much issues we find. It can go faster but it can also go
slower.
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
"microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
(Linus Torvalds)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-23-2008, 02:36 PM
Karanbir Singh
5.2 Dates
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-30-2008, 11:53 AM
John Summerfield
5.2 Dates
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-30-2008, 12:31 PM
Ned Slider
5.2 Dates
John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
You could check the developers blogs at:
http://planet.centos.org/
Specifically Tim's posting from May 23, 2008.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-30-2008, 04:15 PM
Connie Sieh
5.2 Dates
On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics.
I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-30-2008, 04:30 PM
Ray Van Dolson
5.2 Dates
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:15:37AM -0500, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:
>
>> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>> Tim Verhoeven wrote:
>>>> Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
>>>> planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
>>>> all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
>>>> the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
>>>
>>> I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
>>
>> Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
>> system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics.
>> I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
>>
>
> There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at
>
> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/
>
> There should be x86_64 version available at
>
> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64
>
> soon.
>
> -Connie Sieh
To the parent poster.. if you're just wanting to test for better
graphics support, why not use an eval copy of RHEL 5.2 vs an Alpha of
SL?
(If you're needing to test *now* vs in a week or two)
Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
05-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Les Mikesell
5.2 Dates
John Summerfield wrote:
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for
graphics"?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
06-01-2008, 12:03 PM
John Summerfield
5.2 Dates
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5
clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support
for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for
graphics"?
All of these:
Framebuffer in xen works.
X works
Switching between virtual consoles and X works.
Those work fine on my Thinkcentre P IV running Sl5, and on my HP DC7700
running F8, but SL5 is a basket case.
On the Thinkcentre, "modprobe intelfb" gets framebuffer,
I don't recall what, if anything, I had to do to f8, I'm running f9 and
that lacks a dom0 kernel (but I have kvm).
Switching works as one would expect on the Thinkcentre (but "fbset
--all" is advantageous).
Switching on SL5 gets various, somewhat random, video corruption in VCs
and in X.
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
5.2 Dates
