Johnny Hughes (j...@centos.org)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--==============71227872=Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enig46C523FCBF4A1B043C6F3E64"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig46C523FCBF4A1B043C6F3E64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Vandaman wrote:
> A quick question on the fasttrack repo which is now
> up to date with upstream. Why is the fasttrack repo not
> in the main CentOS-Base.repo file but contrib which has never
> had anything is included in the main CentOS-Base.repo file?
>

As I have stated before, CentOS does not maintain the fastrack repo for
all the versions we release.  IN fact ... it is only maintained (to the
best of my knowledge) by me on CentOS-4 i386 and x86_64.

> The goal of CentOS is to be binary-compatible with upstream so
> fasttrack is "more important" in this regard than contrib.
> Upsteam ships with the main channels as well as fasttrack.
>

Fast track is something that was added later by upstream ... as such it
requires changes to existing packages to roll in.  Contrib was rolled in
at the beginning of CentOS, so it was designed with that already in there.

All of this takes time, something that I don't have an unlimited supply of.

Upstream does NOT ship with fastrack turned on .. and it is a channel on
RHN, not really part of. They also have many other channels available
that CentOS does not have time to provide, like MRG, the Z series repos
and others.  If you want all the bells and whistles that a multi-million
corporation can provide, feel free to actually BUY a RHEL license :D

> As CentOS includes the repos in one repo file rather than having
> separate files, this tradition should be considered for fasttrack
> as well.

I will look at rolling in changes to the CentOS-Base.repo file ...
however, if someone has ever changed their file, then it will not get
updated anyway as a CentOS-Base.repo.rpmnew will be created in that case.

I am certainly open to do things that makes CentOS better and I have no
problems making changes that are convenient, but I also do not think
that downloading a text file for an added repo is that difficult.


--------------enig46C523FCBF4A1B043C6F3E64
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--==============75630182=Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enigE462F4327906FD55A71CCB32"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigE462F4327906FD55A71CCB32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Ned Slider <ned@unixmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>   See this link for details (Look for
>>> the "CentOS-Fasttrack" section:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Johnny Hughes
>> The links in the "CentOS-Fasttrack" section on the Wiki are broken. Does
>> anyone know the correct links so I (or someone) can fix them?
>>
>> Specifically:
>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/fasttrack/Readme.txt
>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/fasttrack/CentOS-fasttrack.repo
>
> Turns out that those files are in /4.6/ and need to be copied over to
> /4.7/ . As a *temporary* fix, I hardcoded the links on the wiki by
> changing the "4" with "4.6".

This is now fixed on the master server, thanks Akemi.

The files should be on mirror.centos.org shortly.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


--------------enigE462F4327906FD55A71CCB32
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--==============87305552=Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enigAF40F4BD50F2BC60A1DBA583"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigAF40F4BD50F2BC60A1DBA583
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Vandaman wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaken, does it look like Centos 4.7
>> is missing an update released on December 3rd 2008?
>>
>> Upstream details :- http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2008-0989.html
>>
>> An updated tmpwatch package that fixes various bugs is now available.
>>
>> The tmpwatch utility recursively searches through specified directories and
>> removes files which have not been accessed in a specified period of time.
>> tmpwatch is typically enabled and configured to clean up directories used
>> for temporarily holding files, such as, for example, the /tmp directory.
>>
>> This updated tmpwatch package includes fixes for the following bugs:
>>
>> * tmpwatch unnecessarily reported a "No such file or directory" error
>> whenever a file was deleted before tmpwatch accessed it. In this updated
>> package, tmpwatch correctly no longer reports such errors, thus resolving
>> the issue.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vandaman.
>
> That is part of the fasttrack repo and not part of the main RHN (or
> CenetOS repo).
>
> I will build it soon, but it we don't build fasttrack for every CentOS
> version (ie, not for C5 for example).

OK, all of the fastrack RPMS (for CentOS 4 only) are now on the CentOS
master mirror and should be synced to all the CentOS mirrors shortly.

These RPMS are built from the upstream fastrack channel and are
specifically not part of the default upstream channels and MUST be
subscribed to separately, the same is true for CentOS as well.  Here is
a list of the upstream fastrack updates for EL 4:

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel4-as-fastrack-errata.html

(Note:  rdesktop is now superseded by the version in the main repo)

You can not install these via yum unless you add the FastTrack
repository to your configuration.  See this link for details (Look for
the "CentOS-Fasttrack" section:

http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


--------------enigAF40F4BD50F2BC60A1DBA583
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--==============02889804=Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enig0FAF1F45E2012B0B09C69C21"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig0FAF1F45E2012B0B09C69C21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Rainer Traut wrote:
>> Am 19.12.2008 11:29, schrieb Ian Forde:
>>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:20 +0100, Rainer Traut wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
>>>>
>>>> this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
>>>> bugfixes.
>>> Uhhh... this was *just* released... that's a little quick to be asking,
>>> isn't it? ;) I'm pretty sure I won't be using this in production until
>>> it's at least at 8.2.3 or so...
>> You mean 8.3.3?
>> Yeah you're right, drbd is really really fundamental. But the extras
>> repo is already missing 8.2.7 which was left out. And even 8.2.7 has
>> some bugs fixed not until 8.3.0.
>
> It (8.2.7) isn't left out as much as REAL LIFE has intruded.
>
> I will be maintaining the 8.0.x and 8.2.x branches updated for C5 and
> the 7.x and 8.2.x branches for C4 ... CentOS is an Enterprise distro, if
> you want cutting edge, see Fedora :D
>
>

Actually, since 8.3.x has the features of DRBD+ and since it is
replacing the 8.2.x branch, I will try to get it released as an upgrade
to drbd82 in both C4 and C5 sometime soon.


--------------enig0FAF1F45E2012B0B09C69C21
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--==============44153028=Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enig2D925383E1C61C5611AA68B5"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig2D925383E1C61C5611AA68B5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rainer Traut wrote:
> Am 19.12.2008 11:29, schrieb Ian Forde:
>> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:20 +0100, Rainer Traut wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
>>>
>>> this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
>>> bugfixes.
>> Uhhh... this was *just* released... that's a little quick to be asking,
>> isn't it? ;) I'm pretty sure I won't be using this in production until
>> it's at least at 8.2.3 or so...
>
> You mean 8.3.3?
> Yeah you're right, drbd is really really fundamental. But the extras
> repo is already missing 8.2.7 which was left out. And even 8.2.7 has
> some bugs fixed not until 8.3.0.

It (8.2.7) isn't left out as much as REAL LIFE has intruded.

I will be maintaining the 8.0.x and 8.2.x branches updated for C5 and
the 7.x and 8.2.x branches for C4 ... CentOS is an Enterprise distro, if
you want cutting edge, see Fedora :D


>
> And 8.2.8's release date seems unknown if not unsure.
>
>> Of course, that's not to say that testing packages won't be produced at
>> some point. After all, wasn't there some overlap of 8.1.x and 8.2
>> packages?
>
> If there's something to test I will do...




--------------enig2D925383E1C61C5611AA68B5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"