Re: sl6.0 rolling
On 12/06/2010 03:05 PM, Troy Dawson wrote: > bert barten wrote: >> How can it be that while downloading the 6.0 rolling at 168 mb it >> hangs and goes not further. I tried it on 3 different mirrors. In >> each mirror the same happend. How is that possible? > > Hi Bert, > It sounds like you are using Internet Explorer to download the iso > images from one of the http download areas. > If that is the case you can solve the problem in two ways. > 1- use firefox > 2- use the ftp mirrors instead of the http mirrors, such as > ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/scientific/6rolling/ > > Troy Or download wget here: http://users.ugent.be/~bpuype/wget/ Then: wget -c -t 0 http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/i386/iso/SL-6-i386-DVD1.iso wget -c -t 0 http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/i386/iso/SL-6-i386-DVD2.iso
Re: SL6 Alpha 1: dkms & yum-conf-epel ?
On 06/12/10 14:55, Troy Dawson wrote: I see both pro's and con's with this. Pro - less work - it will be the same if they install the repo from us, or get it from the repo directly Con - longtime SL users will expect yum-conf-blah - I'm not sure that all the repositories have priorities set in their default repo setups. Troy ELRepo (elrepo-release) decided against including a priorities setting by default for the simple reason, what value would you set it to not knowing what other repos are present and how their priorities are set? Until there is consensus between repos each user is likely to configure their priorities differently so we decided to leave it to the user to configure manually according to their own preference. BTW, ELRepo has an EL6 branch up and running and we are gradually populating it with packages, which should work fine with SL6 alpha onwards. Regards, Phil
Re: SL6 Alpha 1: dkms & yum-conf-epel ?
On 12/6/2010 8:55, Troy Dawson wrote: So, for SL6 is was planning on taking the blah-release from the various compatible repositories (epel, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo) and putting them into the release, without any changes if possible. I see both pro's and con's with this. What is the point of duplicating release packages from other repositories when people are going to point yum or anaconda at them anyway? For instance, when one adds EPEL to a kickstart epel-release is installed automatically as part of the base group. -- Garrett Holmstrom University of Minnesota School of Physics and Astronomy Systems Staff
Re: SL6 Alpha 1: dkms & yum-conf-epel ?
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Troy Dawson wrote: dkms - For SL6, we have been asked by the scientific community, to not duplicate packages found in the main external repositories (epel, rpmforge, ... ), unless there is a valid reason. Both dkms and ndiswrapper have come up as packages that a person might need to get on the network in order to access the repositories. But if we are to add drivers to the distribution so that people can access these repositories, I would like them to be in the format that elrepo has them in. So I would like to not add dkms, unless there really isn't a better way to get network drivers installed. Seems fine as long as SL doesn't ship any packages which require dkms, but ... At present SL includes dkms so any repo which ships a package which requires dkms only requires SL packages. If you don't ship it then each of epel, rpmforge, ... (and perhaps also vendors who ship private device drivers) will have to ship their own dkms with the possibility of conflicts or require a package in someone else's addon repo. This is of course true for any package but is especially worrying for a package that is a dependency for kernel addons. Of course the correct answer would have been for TUV to have included dmks :-( -- Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna
Re: SL6 Alpha 1: dkms & yum-conf-epel ?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Troy Dawson wrote: > yum-conf-epel > - It should be there in the beta, or actually epel-release should. > Which brings up a question. > In the past, we have made the yum repository packages "yum-conf-blah" with > blah being the name of the repository, such as yum-conf-epel. > In my mind, that is the correct way to do things, and it makes sense to me. > But the rest of the world doesn't seem to do that. Everyone else put's > their yum repostories in blah-release, such as epel-release or > elrepo-release. > So, for SL6 is was planning on taking the blah-release from the various > compatible repositories (epel, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo) and putting them > into the release, without any changes if possible. > I see both pro's and con's with this. > > Pro > - less work > - it will be the same if they install the repo from us, or get it from the > repo directly > > Con > - longtime SL users will expect yum-conf-blah > - I'm not sure that all the repositories have priorities set in their > default repo setups. How about both? I.e. make the blah-release the actual package as the rest of the world AND make a virtual package yum-conf-blah that does nothing except having blah-release as its dependency for the SL oldtimers. Both can be easily built in one script at the same time. Perhaps a bit more work for Troy and Connie, but tons of pleasure and satisfaction from the SL oldtimers and the newcomers from the rest of the world :-) > Troy > -- > __ > Troy Dawson daw...@fnal.gov (630)840-6468 > Fermilab ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group > __ -- Serguei Mokhov http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~mokhov http://marf.sf.net | http://sf.net/projects/marf
Re: sl6.0 rolling
bert barten wrote: How can it be that while downloading the 6.0 rolling at 168 mb it hangs and goes not further. I tried it on 3 different mirrors. In each mirror the same happend. How is that possible? Hi Bert, It sounds like you are using Internet Explorer to download the iso images from one of the http download areas. If that is the case you can solve the problem in two ways. 1- use firefox 2- use the ftp mirrors instead of the http mirrors, such as ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/scientific/6rolling/ Troy -- __ Troy Dawson daw...@fnal.gov (630)840-6468 Fermilab ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group __
Re: Schedule for lease of production SL 6
Larry Linder wrote: Is there a target date for release of the production SL 6. I have a need to rebuild a number of servers from other Linux OS's and would like to have a guess as to when we may expect SL 6. I remember that the guess a while back was March 11. I am putting together a plan for 2011 as to what new equipment we plan to purchase, the OS used for the new boxes, minnor details I need to put in my yearly plan. Thank You Hi Larry, It is still too early to tell, but I think we can stand by our original guess, which was 4 months from RHEL's original release. As you put it, that would be March 11. Give us another month (mid-january) and I think we can have a more accurate timeline. Thanks Troy -- __ Troy Dawson daw...@fnal.gov (630)840-6468 Fermilab ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group __
Re: SL6 Alpha 1: dkms & yum-conf-epel ?
Herb Thompson wrote: I've installed SL6 Alpha 1 as a VirtualBox (Version 3.2.12) guest on an XP SP3 host. It seems to run well with 512 MB of guest memory; and basic guest-additions features like shared folders and full-screen mode seem to work. Don't know if this is useful feedback at the alpha stage, but for whatever its worth: the dkms and yum-conf-epel packages don't seem to be in the repo. dkms - For SL6, we have been asked by the scientific community, to not duplicate packages found in the main external repositories (epel, rpmforge, ... ), unless there is a valid reason. Both dkms and ndiswrapper have come up as packages that a person might need to get on the network in order to access the repositories. But if we are to add drivers to the distribution so that people can access these repositories, I would like them to be in the format that elrepo has them in. So I would like to not add dkms, unless there really isn't a better way to get network drivers installed. yum-conf-epel - It should be there in the beta, or actually epel-release should. Which brings up a question. In the past, we have made the yum repository packages "yum-conf-blah" with blah being the name of the repository, such as yum-conf-epel. In my mind, that is the correct way to do things, and it makes sense to me. But the rest of the world doesn't seem to do that. Everyone else put's their yum repostories in blah-release, such as epel-release or elrepo-release. So, for SL6 is was planning on taking the blah-release from the various compatible repositories (epel, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo) and putting them into the release, without any changes if possible. I see both pro's and con's with this. Pro - less work - it will be the same if they install the repo from us, or get it from the repo directly Con - longtime SL users will expect yum-conf-blah - I'm not sure that all the repositories have priorities set in their default repo setups. Troy -- __ Troy Dawson daw...@fnal.gov (630)840-6468 Fermilab ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group __
