FAQ

[CentOS-devel] 5.2 Dates

Karanbir Singh
May 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm
ok, so I put some dates up at http://wiki.centos.org/KaranbirSingh/5.2

Essentially, 25th is the last date that I am still looking at backlog
and mod's etc. After that its basically just all builders go, get the
packages into the -qa target. Once that is done - install media.

this plan gives the -qa guys 6 days to look at stuff. Which should be
enough ?

- KB
reply

Search Discussions

8 responses

  • Tim Verhoeven at May 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    ok, so I put some dates up at http://wiki.centos.org/KaranbirSingh/5.2

    Essentially, 25th is the last date that I am still looking at backlog and
    mod's etc. After that its basically just all builders go, get the packages
    into the -qa target. Once that is done - install media.

    this plan gives the -qa guys 6 days to look at stuff. Which should be enough
    ?
    My feeling is that 6 days is going to be to short especially when some
    of us are going to be at Linuxtag between the 28th and the 31th.

    10 days sounds like a more reasonable estimate to me. But it will also
    depend on how much issues we find. It can go faster but it can also go
    slower.

    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.

    Regards,
    Tim

    --
    Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven.be@gmail.com - 0479 / 88 11 83

    Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the
    "microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed.
    (Linus Torvalds)
  • Karanbir Singh at May 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Tim Verhoeven wrote:
    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
    I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.

    - KB
  • John Summerfield at May 30, 2008 at 11:53 am

    Karanbir Singh wrote:
    Tim Verhoeven wrote:
    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
    I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
    system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
    graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.



    --

    Cheers
    John

    -- spambait
    1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu
    -- Advice
    http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

    You cannot reply off-list:-)
  • Ned Slider at May 30, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    John Summerfield wrote:
    Karanbir Singh wrote:
    Tim Verhoeven wrote:
    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
    I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
    system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
    graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.

    You could check the developers blogs at:

    http://planet.centos.org/

    Specifically Tim's posting from May 23, 2008.
  • Connie Sieh at May 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:

    Karanbir Singh wrote:
    Tim Verhoeven wrote:
    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
    I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
    system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics.
    I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
    There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at

    ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/

    There should be x86_64 version available at

    ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64

    soon.

    -Connie Sieh
  • Ray Van Dolson at May 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:15:37AM -0500, Connie Sieh wrote:
    On Fri, 30 May 2008, John Summerfield wrote:

    Karanbir Singh wrote:
    Tim Verhoeven wrote:
    Anyway, when can we expect the first packages to be build ? I'm
    planning on setting up 2 VM's (one for i386, one for x86_64) to give
    all build packages a first test, and when all packages are ready let
    the rest of the QA'ers loose on them.
    I'll start pushing built packages around 1am UTC Sat 24th.
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
    system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for graphics.
    I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
    There is a a ALPHA of SL 5.2 for i386 available at

    ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/i386/

    There should be x86_64 version available at

    ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64

    soon.

    -Connie Sieh
    To the parent poster.. if you're just wanting to test for better
    graphics support, why not use an eval copy of RHEL 5.2 vs an Alpha of
    SL?

    (If you're needing to test *now* vs in a week or two)

    Ray
  • Les Mikesell at May 30, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    John Summerfield wrote:
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5 clone)
    system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support for
    graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
    Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for
    graphics"?

    --
    Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@gmail.com
  • John Summerfield at Jun 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Les Mikesell wrote:
    John Summerfield wrote:
    Where might the anxious find these? I have an sl5 (another RHEL5
    clone) system that's next to useless as there's no adequate support
    for graphics. I'd like to try 5.2 before I try it as a boat anchor.
    Can you be more specific as to what you consider "adequate support for
    graphics"?
    All of these:
    Framebuffer in xen works.
    X works
    Switching between virtual consoles and X works.

    Those work fine on my Thinkcentre P IV running Sl5, and on my HP DC7700
    running F8, but SL5 is a basket case.

    On the Thinkcentre, "modprobe intelfb" gets framebuffer,
    I don't recall what, if anything, I had to do to f8, I'm running f9 and
    that lacks a dom0 kernel (but I have kvm).

    Switching works as one would expect on the Thinkcentre (but "fbset
    --all" is advantageous).

    Switching on SL5 gets various, somewhat random, video corruption in VCs
    and in X.



    --

    Cheers
    John

    -- spambait
    1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu
    -- Advice
    http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

    You cannot reply off-list:-)

Related Discussions