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

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-11-2008, 11:07 AM
"Luigi Perroti"
 
Default Could this be an advantage of CentOS over the PNAELV distribution?

Hello all,

I understand that when releasing updates the CentOS team strips logos
and such things from the upstream sources.
If I'm not mistaken there is also a certain QA process going on before
the actual releases, at least for major updates like the upcoming 5.2
version.

Does this happen also for security updates?


Since I don't mind the small delay from the upstream releases I was
wondering if the additional QA process could actually be an advantage
over the PNAELV distribution.
This could be even more true if the QA isn't only related to CentOS
specific changes but it's done even for practically untouched updates.

Is this assumption correct?


Thanks for reading,
Luigi
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-11-2008, 05:19 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Could this be an advantage of CentOS over the PNAELV distribution?

Luigi Perroti wrote:

Hello all,

I understand that when releasing updates the CentOS team strips logos
and such things from the upstream sources.
If I'm not mistaken there is also a certain QA process going on before
the actual releases, at least for major updates like the upcoming 5.2
version.

Does this happen also for security updates?


Yes, we QA every update. However there is much less to look at when
you are not doing several hundred packages at the same time.


We also do not have a Client and Server and Workstation and AS/WS/ES
type structure ... or install numbers, etc. So creating the compilation
is complicated.


There is a combined comps.xml that has to be created which is
significantly different than the upstream one.





Since I don't mind the small delay from the upstream releases I was
wondering if the additional QA process could actually be an advantage
over the PNAELV distribution.


Yes ... for example in the 5.2 QA process, we have already found and
worked around several bugs ... like:


RHEL-5.2 rebased gtkhtml3 which renders custom software built against
the old version useless until recompiled. I have produced a
compat-gtkhtml3 for CentOS-Extras.


There is a bug with nss_ldap and bash32 ... I created a new RPM for the
nss_ldap that is currently in our testing repo.




This could be even more true if the QA isn't only related to CentOS
specific changes but it's done even for practically untouched updates.



Even if we don't change anything, we have to verify every binary because
red hat does not release the "buildroot" logs for each RPM. There are
frequently "hidden build requirements" (that means things in the build
root that are linked against, but not listed as a BuildRequires in the
SRPM). We find these by seeing what the upstream binaries link against
and then adding them to our build root and rebuilding.



Is this assumption correct?



We check every binary, not just the changed ones ... because we rebuild
everything and they all can have hidden build requirements.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM.

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