AW: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing?
Indeed a very interesting question, I will follow the answers. I was and I am very happy with the work done in SL 6.x. So I'm sad to see that there might be a change in direction. Best regards Andreas > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov [mailto:owner- > scientific-linux-users@listserv.fnal.gov] Im Auftrag von lejeczek > Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Januar 2016 10:48 > An: SCIENTIFIC- LINUX- USERS@ FNAL. GOV > Betreff: a year later - CERN move to Centos - what are we doing? > > hi everybody, > > I've wondered and got curious, what do you guys, gals think > about that move? > More importantly do you think it's a step we SL users should > also consider? > CERN mention there were talks between them, Fermilab - what > are Fermilab plans with regards to future releases, with > regards to SL in general? (Not much info on the website.) > I personally am just about to trial a migration from SL7 to > Centos. I'm thinking it's inevitable, am I wrong? > > best wishes.
AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] AW: Pacemaker problem after last night updates..
Hi Pat, thank you for the information. Best regards Andreas -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Pat Riehecky [mailto:riehe...@fnal.gov] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. August 2015 15:03 An: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV Betreff: Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] AW: Pacemaker problem after last night updates.. For SL, we've just added the updated library to the security repos. Pat On 08/04/2015 09:04 AM, Andreas Mock wrote: Hi Akemi, besides the rescue solution prvided by you: Do you know if there will be an official correction for this library dependency problem in the 6.x repos? Best regards Andreas -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Akemi Yagi [mailto:amy...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. August 2015 14:54 An: Andreas Mock Cc: scientific-linux-us...@fnal.gov Betreff: Re: Pacemaker problem after last night updates.. On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Andreas Mock andreas.m...@drumedar.de wrote: Hi all, just jumped into the same mess... There is a bug report at RHEL https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1415913 But I don't know the solution. It seems that libqb should have been updated too. Can you please investigate this problem? Try installing libqb-0.17.1-1.el6 from sl6rolling: http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/x86_64/os/Package s/libqb-0.17.1-1.el6.i686.rpm or http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/x86_64/os/Package s/libqb-0.17.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm I believe that will solve the issue. Akemi -- Pat Riehecky Scientific Linux developer Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory www.fnal.gov www.scientificlinux.org
AW: AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0
Hi Pat, hi Patrick, thanks for your answers and comments. How would someone like me get a SRPM for a binary package found or installed on a SL 7.0 system? I really don't understand in the moment how it is verified that sources are from RH and unaltered by someone in between. Best regards Andreas Mock Von: Patrick J. LoPresti [mailto:lopre...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 23:22 An: Pat Riehecky Cc: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV Betreff: Re: AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Pat Riehecky riehe...@fnal.gov wrote: The sources were taken from git. They were then compared to the sources from the public Release Candidate provided by upstream on April 22 2014. There were very few changes from this Release Candidate to the official release. Nice work. All the Security/Enhancement/Bugfix code comes out of git as the source rpms for these were never publicly released. Does this mean there is no way to correlate security/bugfix updates from Red Hat with the changes in git, and therefore no way to know how far SL is diverging from RHEL over time? Is the git tree entirely RHEL + released updates, or are unreleased CentOS changes mixed in as well? Presumably, anyone with a RHEL subscription (and the right tools) could compare the git repository against the update SRPMs, at least to tell you whether they are the same. Would that be a violation of the subscription terms, I wonder? Just curious. - Pat
AW: AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0
Hi Nico, thank you for your both answers. I'm really not happy to hear this summary and I really don't understand it. (But I have an idea why it was done this way by RH) Is there not much more skepticism out there for the validity/integrity of the sources? Just because I'm curious: Would it be legal to buy one RH subscription to get the SRPM to build a clone from that? I'm asking because an organisation like Femilabs or CERN should have the money to buy one subscription to have a sane base for a clone. And I've chosen SL because I hoped to have a distribution with stability in mind. So, up to now every update and upgrade worked like a charm. Big thumb up for all who did this work. Best regards Andreas Mock -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Nico Kadel-Garcia [mailto:nka...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. September 2014 13:33 An: Andreas Mock Cc: Patrick J. LoPresti; Pat Riehecky; SCIENTIFIC-LINUX- us...@listserv.fnal.gov Betreff: Re: AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Andreas Mock andreas.m...@drumedar.de wrote: Hi Pat, hi Patrick, thanks for your answers and comments. How would someone like me get a SRPM for a binary package found or installed on a SL 7.0 system? I really don't understand in the moment how it is verified that sources are from RH and unaltered by someone in between. Best regards Andreas Mock Our favorite upstream vendor signs the SRPM's and RPM's with GPG signatures, whicih can be verified from their public websites and their installation media. So do CentOS and Scientifici Linux. Now, if I could just convince our new upstream software friends over at git.centos.org to use GPG signatures for git tags, I'd be much happier about the provenance of software in that new public repository. I'd be even happier if the person from Red Hat who uploads the original source code from Red Hat would GPG sign a tag for *just that code* with a Red Hat key, and our CentOS maintainers (some of whom are now Red Hat employees!) could GPG sign tags for CentOS modified software. But I'd be thrilled to pieces if they'd even affix a CentOS tg to the Red HAt uploaded content, just for the provenance concerns I've already raised. Sadly, my concerns about provenance have been ignored, and now the existing Scientific Linux development from git.centos.org is being held up as proof that git tags are not desirable and my concerns ill founded. It's quite galling: the current semi-manual re-assembly of local branches, based on git log entries, is winding up lauded as sufficient and superior because, frankly, it's the only thing that's currently supported. It's really quite galling. I've gotten quite put out with every sys-admin in the world thinking they can re-invent the wheel, and coming up with their own mismatched wheels, to replace what are well designed software features like git 'tags'.
AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0
Hi David, Thank you for that. A valuable piece of information for the future. Regards Andreas Mock -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: David Sommerseth [mailto:sl+us...@lists.topphemmelig.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. September 2014 16:52 An: Andreas Mock; Patrick J. LoPresti; Pat Riehecky Cc: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV Betreff: Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0 On 03/09/14 10:33, Andreas Mock wrote: Hi Pat, hi Patrick, thanks for your answers and comments. How would someone like me get a SRPM for a binary package found or installed on a SL 7.0 system? yumdownloader --source $PKGNAME -- kind regards, David Sommerseth Von: Patrick J. LoPresti [mailto:lopre...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 23:22 An: Pat Riehecky Cc: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV Betreff: Re: AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0 On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Pat Riehecky riehe...@fnal.gov wrote: The sources were taken from git. They were then compared to the sources from the public Release Candidate provided by upstream on April 22 2014. There were very few changes from this Release Candidate to the official release. Nice work. All the Security/Enhancement/Bugfix code comes out of git as the source rpms for these were never publicly released. Does this mean there is no way to correlate security/bugfix updates from Red Hat with the changes in git, and therefore no way to know how far SL is diverging from RHEL over time? Is the git tree entirely RHEL + released updates, or are unreleased CentOS changes mixed in as well? Presumably, anyone with a RHEL subscription (and the right tools) could compare the git repository against the update SRPMs, at least to tell you whether they are the same. Would that be a violation of the subscription terms, I wonder? Just curious. - Pat -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
AW: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0
Hi Pat, thank you for the fast answer. What does TUV's sources mean? Was it the sources from git? Or were they taken directly from RH? Best regards Andreas Mock Von: Pat Riehecky [mailto:riehe...@fnal.gov] Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2014 21:53 An: Andreas Mock; SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV Betreff: Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Questions about SL 7.0 On 09/02/2014 01:55 PM, Andreas Mock wrote: Hi all, as a regular and happy user of Scientific Linux 6.x I looked around today to see how far SL 7.0 is. I was happy to see that a release was created. Thank you all for that work. While searching with Google I found several articles and news explaining and discussing the new work between RH and CentOS and hosting the sources on git.centos.org. What I couldn't find out is the following: On which base is SL 7.0 made? Is it the same as CERT SL 7.0? Are the sources taken from git.certos.org? Or is SL7.0 a clone of CertOS? Can someone put light on the development process of SL 7.0? In which way is the integrity of the RHEL sources guaranteed? Best regards Andreas Mock Does http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1407L=scientific-linux-develX=782E7013C0D8152677P=74 Address your concerns? -- Pat Riehecky Scientific Linux developer http://www.scientificlinux.org/
