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 11-15-2011, 01:39 AM
Akemi Yagi
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Alan McKay <alan.mckay@gmail.com> wrote:

> Basically from what I gather, while Red Hat cannot restrict access to
> sources, they can restrict access to binaries. *And since CentOS has a
> goal of binary compatibility with upstream, they are essentially left
> trying to hit an unknown target. *But (now I'm stretching my limited
> knowledge even further) Scientific does not have this restriction
> since they are less concerned about exact binary compat.

You are stretching your knowledge to a wrong direction

Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
is perfect.

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-November/119250.html

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 01:56 AM
Alan McKay
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
> is perfect.

That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
(and so long ago at that)?


--
“Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV”
* * * ** - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 10:04 AM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:56 AM, Alan McKay piše:
>> Both CentOS and Scientific Linux *aim* at 100% binary compatibility
>> and they are both doing their best toward that goal. However, neither
>> is perfect.
>
> That's interesting. So how is it they've managed to come out with 6.1
> (and so long ago at that)?
>
>

THe text bellow in only MY opinion, and I am not the member of the dev
team, or have any official capacity except being one of the admins in
the CentOS Facebook Group.

One of the reasons (as much as I understood) is that initially CentOS
team was caught unprepared for the fact that CentOS 6 is not build-able
from either CentOS 5 or RHEL 6, or even Fedora's, or even any
combination of those distros.

In the past you could build CentOS 5 using CentOS/RHEL 5 Beta, something
like that, I do not know exact details, but it was easy to build it.

1. When RHEL 6 Beta came out, devs were confronted with hostile building
environment with missing versions of packages actually used (they had to
file bugs against it and wait for Red Hat to release them while chasing
around to possibly find those versions faster.

2. In the past there was not many people "training" to be on the devs
team and existing members are volunteers so they have/had limited free
time. It was 6-7 years after any mayor/complex building effort, so even
active devs had no mayor problems in that period and they were kind of
rusty (I hope devs will not take this against me, it is normal for
skills lesser used to require brushing up, I know it on my own example).

3. Infrastructure (hardware) and build environment speed and
optimization (in terms of software like mock/smock, binary comparison,
etc.) was not up to the task at hand. Even disk space was a stretched to
the limit to accommodate all versions, srpms, building environments, ...

4. Way of doing thing CentOS pre-6.x was proved to be inefficient and
the gap from upstream releases started to prolong. That is when CentOS
devs decided to change policy and do like SL team, and create CR repo so
they can publish all completed packages as soon as they are available.

Scientific Linux has (at least) 2 paid developers and they started
setting up (Koji) building environment (long?) before RHEL 6 Beta was
released. That gave them starting advantage.

Further more, SL devs decided to push SL 6.0 before 5.7 and 4.9 point
releases (contrary to CentOS devs) published in same time frame, so to
many on this mailing list it looked like SL devs are overall much
faster. Their 5.7 update was (I think) few months behind.

Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).

There is much more relevant info, but this should be the jest an I have
work to do.


--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 12:19 PM
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

On 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
>
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting and informative.
>
> I guess one question that I've never seen raised
> is if there has ever been a suggestion that Centos and SL
> should combine, or at least work together?
> They seem to have exactly the same aim.
>
> I wonder why SL was set up,
> rather than offering to help the CentOS team?

SL does betas and CentOS does not for example. I think the way both
projects chose to operate is simply incompatible.

> I saw statistics - I don't remember where - saying that
> CentOS had 30% of the Linux market,
> which I found very surprising, though also satsifying (to me).
> SL had a tiny share.
> (I remember now, it was someone complaining that Fedora's share
> was slipping badly.)

Fedora is basically an incubator for new technologies and as such not
really an attractive system to install for end-users. If you deal with
servers you probably go with CentOS, SL, Debian, etc. and if you want a
desktop you probably use Ubuntu.

> I belong to what may be the silent majority
> who don't really care if CentOS is absolutely up-to-date.
> (As far as I can see, none of the changes in CentOS-6.1
> would make the slightest difference to me.
> I run CentOS on 3 home servers, and Fedora on my laptops.)
>
> I was very struck by the ease with which I upgraded to CentOS-6,
> compared with the nightmare (now hopefully over)
> upgrading from Fedora-15 to Fedora-16.
> It reminded me why I would never run Fedora on a server.

I tend to skip one Fedora release and then do a a plain reinstall and copy
my old data I need over. Fedora upgrades always sound rather messy.

Regards,
Dennis
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 01:46 PM
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
<snip>
>> I saw statistics - I don't remember where - saying that
>> CentOS had 30% of the Linux market, which I found very surprising,

Wow!

>> though also satsifying (to me). SL had a tiny share.
>> (I remember now, it was someone complaining that Fedora's share
>> was slipping badly.)

Because fedora, as has been mentioned here by folks in addition to me, is
bleeding edge, not leading edge. There's *NO* *WAY* I'd run it at home,
much less at work.
<snip>
>> I was very struck by the ease with which I upgraded to CentOS-6,
>> compared with the nightmare (now hopefully over)
>> upgrading from Fedora-15 to Fedora-16.
>> It reminded me why I would never run Fedora on a server.
>
> I tend to skip one Fedora release and then do a a plain reinstall and copy
> my old data I need over. Fedora upgrades always sound rather messy.

The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventually.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 02:15 PM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Vreme: 11/15/2011 01:56 PM, Timothy Murphy piše:
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Currently, CentOS build system should be in much better shape and we
>> will see how it will do for coming 6.2 point release (already in beta).
>
> Thanks very much for that.
> I found your account most interesting and informative.
>
> I guess one question that I've never seen raised
> is if there has ever been a suggestion that Centos and SL
> should combine, or at least work together?
> They seem to have exactly the same aim.
>
> I wonder why SL was set up,
> rather than offering to help the CentOS team?

SL is maintained for Scientists mostly in Fermi Labs and CERN, and it
has additional Scientific applications/packages.

They are also government funded project, and as such must follow some
strict rules. Those are main reasons. There are smaller ones, but even
those are enough not to think in the direction of joining projects.

<snip>
> I run CentOS on 3 home servers, and Fedora on my laptops.)

I have setup repository for desktop use of CentOS where I have put many
packages (~300 compiled and 45 downloaded from non-repo locations) and
in process of solving repo conflicts so major third-part repositories
can be the basis for nicely formulated Desktop distro. When I finally
have enough time I will finish it and offer entire package to public. I
hope it will be soon.

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 02:31 PM
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us piše:
> The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
> building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
> that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventually.
+1

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy <gayleard@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I don't really understand
> what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
> I always think of it as a contrast to laptop.

'Desktop' is in contrast to 'server'. On a server, you only reboot to
load a new kernel and you never use the console display, rarely change
the drive layout or use removable storage, and almost never change the
network connections - and you expect the same programs to run for
years. On a desktop, the display is the first priority, ownership of
certain devices is expected to magically shift to the user at the
console, developers will give up consistent device naming for boot
speed, and nobody cares if last year's programs still run with this
year's OS.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 03:23 PM
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Timothy Murphy <gayleard@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, I don't really understand
>> what is meant by the term "desktop" nowadays.
>> I always think of it as a contrast to laptop.
>
> 'Desktop' is in contrast to 'server'. On a server, you only reboot to
> load a new kernel and you never use the console display, rarely change

Oh, I dunno - it's not infrequently that I have to plug in a
monitor-on-a-stick....

> the drive layout or use removable storage, and almost never change the
> network connections - and you expect the same programs to run for
> years. On a desktop, the display is the first priority, ownership of
> certain devices is expected to magically shift to the user at the
> console, developers will give up consistent device naming for boot
> speed, and nobody cares if last year's programs still run with this
> year's OS.

I don't agree with that. Some people do want to keep running what they
know, and if the budget's tight....

mark, trying to find a prboom server for CentOS 5...."

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-15-2011, 03:33 PM
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
 
Default Changes at Red Hat confouding CentOS (was: What happened to 6.1)

On 11/15/2011 04:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us piše:
>> The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now
>> building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring
>> that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventually.
> +1
>

I doubt that. The issue isn't the technology but the support issues that
can arise from updating systems between releases. Red Hat would have to
test all kinds of update scenarios and not only between two releases but
they'd also have to take into account systems that have been upgraded
several times. I'm pretty sure they will stick to the service migration
update path they are using now.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 AM.

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