DevHeads.net

Postings by Greg Bailey

MATE 1.20 test build for CentOS 7 available

Hi everyone,

There's been discussions in the past about updating MATE RPMs in EPEL-7:
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436260" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436260">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436260</a>
<a href="https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2019-August/173154.html" title="https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2019-August/173154.html">https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2019-August/173154.html</a>
(and lots of others...)

As a proof-of-concept, I've written some scripts that clone specific
commits from the Fedora master branches, and then runs a tool to
re-apply RPM scriptlets that are required by EL7 but removed from the
Fedora .spec files.

The scripts are available at:
<a href="https://github.com/gebailey/mate-rpms/tree/master/1.20/el7" title="https://github.com/gebailey/mate-rpms/tree/master/1.20/el7">https://github.com/gebailey/mate-rpms/tree/master/1.20/el7</a>

There's also instructions there if you want to try u

Why the new centos-release update?

Just curious about this after seeing the following output of a typical
"yum upgrade":

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package centos-release.x86_64 0:7-5.1804.el7.centos.2 will be updated
---> Package centos-release.x86_64 0:7-5.1804.1.el7.centos will be an update
...etc...

After downloading the 2 centos-release RPMs, the content appears
identical.  I was assuming there'd at least be differences with yum
definitions, GPG keys, or something like that.

Was it just to fix some naming inconsistency or something?

-Greg

Unexplained size difference with CentOS 7 (1503) -01 install media

In the process of updating my copy of the CentOS 7 (1503) -01 install
media, I notice that it's ~70MB larger than the image that it's replacing:

$ rsync mirrors.kernel.org::centos/7.1.1503/isos/x86_64/*DVD*.iso

-rw-r--r-- 4310695936 2015/03/31 17:05:50 CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso
-rw-r--r-- 4236247040 2015/03/28 12:15:26 CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso

But when I compare sizes using "du" on the mounted ISO files, I can't
see any discernible difference:

Original CentOS 7 (1503) DVD:

$ du -ks /centos7/*
1 /centos7/CentOS_BuildTag
6148 /centos7/EFI
1 /centos7/EULA
18 /centos

Does LibreOffice need to be patched to remove upstream "supplied by" text?

I just noticed that if I click "Help / About" in LibreOffice Writer (and
likely other LibreOffice apps), I see:

This release was supplied by Red Hat, Inc.
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2013 LibreOffice contributors and/or their affiliates
LibreOffice was based on OpenOffice.org

I know several packages are patched to remove ambiguity as to who
supplied the package; should this be one of them?

thanks,
Greg

opennx wants to replace nxclient on all my CentOS 6 servers

Looks like opennx appeared in the extras repository some time recently.
Because the extras repository is enabled by default, all of the servers
where I have nxclient installed are showing opennx as available which
will obsolete nxclient.

I went ahead and upgraded on my laptop but the resulting opennx
installation didn't launch properly.

Should bugs.centos.org entries be duped for CentOS 5 and CentOS 6?

It's a minor issue, but I opened <a href="http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4951" title="http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4951">http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4951</a>
some time ago against CentOS 6, because I noticed that most of the files
on the DVD image(s) are owned by UID=500, and it's inconsistent with
upstream.

I just checked my CentOS 5.7 iso, and it's in the same situation; with
5.8 being worked, does it make sense to consider this bug entry for 5.8
ISO creation? Or does a new bug need to be filed?

thanks,
Greg

Will QA web site have CentOS 6.1 status?

The QA web site at <a href="http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/blog" title="http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/blog">http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/blog</a> was really
helpful for those of us who were curious as to how CentOS 6.0 was coming
along. However, there doesn't seem to be much information as to how
CentOS 6.1 is going from either the QA web site, the forums
(Announcements), or Kananbir's twitter feed -- but it may be I'm just
not looking in the right place.

Does the QA site only get updated once 6.1 is passed along to the QA
members?

CentOS 5.6 updated packages - what about subversion?

I see the following in the CentOS 5.6 Release Notes:

6.3. Packages that have been upgraded in 5.6 since the 5.5 release

* python-2.4.3-27.el5_5.3

Wouldn't subversion also be listed?

CentOS 5.5 has subversion-1.4.2-4.el5_3.1
CentOS 5.6 has subversion-1.6.11-7.el5

Is this list generated automatically or is it maintained by hand?

-Greg