Re: SL5x flash-plugin does not work

[Jarek Polok]

I'm afraid we'll need to wait for Adobe to built next release for
this to be fixed (they have been notified about, Red Hat too).

... probably on next round of flash security updates .. which probably 
means within two weeks ..


Cheers

Jarek


On 10/31/2015 12:01 AM, Tru Huynh wrote:

Hello,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:18:55PM +0100, Franchisseur Robert wrote:

Hello,

the  last  update of flash-plugin (11.2.202.540-release.x86_64)  from
adoberepodoesnot   work  anylongerwithfirefox
(38.3.0-2.el5_11.x86_64)


Same issue on CentOS-5 here pointing back to Adobe building for a newer
glib2 version than the one available on the old but supported RHEL-5
clones version.

On RHEL-6 clones, /lib*/libgio-2.0.so.0 is provided by
glib2-2.28.8-4.el6*, which does not exist in the glib2-2.12.3-4.el5_3.1*
provided on the RHEL-5 clones.


I found a flash-plugin-11.2.202.540-3.slc5 in slc5-extras.repo but
there is a

   Missing Dependency: libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)

but a :  yum --enablerepo=* provides */libgio

says : No Matches found

Do you know where could I find that ?

flash-plugin-11.2.202.540-3.slc5 changelog hinted:

* Mon Oct 19 2015 Jaroslaw Polok  - 11.2.202.540-3
- remove flash-player-properties binary on SLC5 (needs libgio-2.0 not
   available ...)

Alas, ldd on libflashplayer.so finds a dependancy on  libgio-2.0.so.0
on both i386 and x86_64 versions.

Unless Adobe fixes that, there is no way that we can run the
flash-plugin on RHEL-5 clones.

Just my 2 cents

Tru




--
__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
__+41_75_411_9487 _

Re: Chromium in EL?

[Jarek Polok]

On 01/21/2015 08:24 PM, Schaaf, Jonathan P (GE Healthcare) wrote:

I couldn't help but notice that chromium appeared in the source tree on SL just 
yesterday.  Is this is a recent addition to upstream?


chromium has been added to 6 by upstream some time ago,
but source packages were not available in public
repositories: apparently upstream changed that
policy recently (guess we were not the only ones
asking ...)

Best Regards

Jarek
__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_ +41_76_487_9487 _

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

[Jarek Polok]

Dear Yasha

[...]


 From a query I posted on this matter to the SL list:
 
 2.  Evidently, Singh and other core CentOS team members actually are
 Red Hat employees,
 just as the core SL team have been Fermilab or CERN employees
 (presumably in some cases
 actually paid by the research collaborations funded by various
 government agencies through
 various universities -- e.g., in the USA, NSF or DOE with each PI
 typically holding a
 tenure-stream faculty position at a university).  Will the core SL team
 or the core CERN linux
 team likewise become Red Hat employees?

CERN linux team is and will be CERN employees: Our only relationship
with Red Hat is that we are customers. To clarify little bit: Our
primary mission at CERN is to provide support for linux platform for
our customers - experiments and working groups - not to build linux
distribution. (yes - we did it in last 10 years since in 2004
this was the only option)

 
 End question.
 
 Are Jerek Polok et al. now Red Hat employees, or still CERN employees?
 

Yes we are CERN employees: the fact of using this or that linux version
does not change it - why would it ?

 Additional questions:
 
 A.  Will the SL/SLC source tree for RPM builds be a separate copy from
 the CentOS git, downloaded therefrom?

I am speaking for SLC here: no: we are going to use CentOS.

 
 A.1  Will the SL/SLC source tree be compared to the original SRPMs that
 CERN seems to have under license from Red Hat to verify
 that the CentOS git source is in fact unadulterated RHEL 7 source,
 other than for obvious Red Hat logos and the like?
 

Speaking for SLC here: yes, we could do it (so could SL and anybody
else), but please note: this does not change anything for everybody else
on this list: if somebody decides to distrust Red Hat and CentOS ... why
would that person trust us ? ...


 B.  Jarek states above:  Whatever the case, there will continue to exist
 a linux of production quality and of free or affordable cost. 

That was actually a quote from Konstantin's post- but
I fully agree with it.

 What is
 affordable cost and to what is this cost to be paid?  Red Hat? 
 CERN?  Fermilab (technically, the consortium responsible for operating
 Fermilab as USA federally funded research facility) for USA-based
 university sites using SL 7?

For us at CERN the affordable cost is dedicating some
resources (manpower/hardware/network bandwidth/ .. etc)
towards support/maintenance (and development only if needed)
of a freely distributable linux version matching our
computing platform requirements.

I do not fully understand your question about the cost
to be paid I'm afraid:

What is your current cost of using SL ?

Why would that cost change if you use CentOS (or SL
built with CentOS sources) ?

Best Regards

Jarek

__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_ +41_76_487_9487 _

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

[Jarek Polok]

[...]

 ??? That is not at all what I got from his reply.  What I got was that
 CERN will still be committing resources, but instead of duplicating
 effort they're joining up with the CentOS effort. 

This is what I meant.

 I even get the
 impression that it's the same amount of resources as was put towards the
 separate SLC distribution, which will likely now be a SIG of CentOS. 

Actually we (SLC) are putting these resources in CentOS Core SIG.
(and in the future perhaps in other SIGs too - Cloud / Virt / ..etc)
- as a matter of fact - little bit less than 'same amount' -
since we still continue building SLC6 and SLC5 in-house.

 This is good for everyone, since here is a dedicated team that is not
 comprised of Red Hat employees vested in CentOS.
 

[ ... ]

Jarek

__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_ +41_76_487_9487 _

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

[Jarek Polok]

 And in case I haven't already thanked you (and I think I did, 

Yes, you did (more than once actually ;-))

 but it
 bears repeating) thanks for sticking with IA64 up to SLC 5.4; 

As you know we had to stop this effort .. I believe by
now we do not have any IA64 systems remaining at CERN ..

 it made my
 job of rebuilding CentOS 5 packages on IA64 much much easier, and SLC
 5.4 is still my startup distribution for bootstrapping an Altix before
 pointing to my C5 rebuild repos (I haven't spun ISO's as yet, just
 rebuilt the packages).

Do you have your rebuild available somewhere to the public ?

Regards

Jarek



-- 
__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_ +41_76_487_9487 _

Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build

[Jarek Polok]

Hello all.


On 06/27/2014 09:44 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 08:17:19PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:

 However, based upon the balance of probabilities, it looks likely that
 SL7 will not be based directly on RHEL7 but on CentOS.
 If so, ... why continued with SL at all.

 
 The 800lbs gorilla in the room is CERN (and other large physics labs),
 who require a linux (some linux) to run the large compute farms
 for analysis of LHC data.

Since I'm involved in Linux @ CERN, let me answer your questions:

 
 For historical reasons, this linux has been Red Hat based
 (and we know it under the names SL and SLC).
 
 Will it remain Red Hat based?

Yes. (as already mentioned by others in this thread:
 http://cern.ch/linux/nextversion.shtml)

 Will the next cern linux be ubuntu/debian based?

No.

 Will Red Hat relax their rules to keep CERN (and the HEP community)?

Not sure which rules are we talking about. (but I'm not aware of
any special rules for CERN as a Red Hat customer)

 
 As an added kink, with the major changes from RHEL6 to RHEL7,
 the cost of going from SLC6 to RHEL based SLC7 becomes comparable
 to going from SLC6 to a ubuntu/debian based SLC?

Absolutely not. Starting migration from SLC6 to CentOS 7 requires minor
tweaks to some of our in-house configuration / system mgmt. tools.
Changing to a different platform would be a whole new story ...

[ I'm not talking about experiments software stacks here,
  some of these may be validated on other platforms, some not ..
  Same applies to 3rd party commercial products ]

 Whatever the case, there will continue to exist a linux of production quality
 and of free or affordable cost.
 

Best Regards

Jarek

-- 
__
---
_ Jaroslaw_Polok __ CERN - IT/OIS/WLS _
_ http://cern.ch/~jpolok  tel_+41_22_767_1834 _
_ +41_76_487_9487 _