SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

June 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:00:22 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
On 06/18/2014 08:22 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> (different topic, different reply)
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The various spec files include the release numbers, and you can track
>> the spec files with their commit IDs.
> Could you be more specific?

If the spec, patches, and sources are all committed with the same commit 
ID for a particular package, you can grab the updated spec file (using 
the commit feeds), pull the NEVRA info out of it, and grab the patches 
and source (using the commit ID) corresponding to that package's NEVRA.  
You'll have to write the tools yourself, or use the tools being written 
by the CentOS (and SL) projects.

> In particular, is there a reliable,
> automated procedure to obtain a git checkout of the exact source code
> for a particular complete RHEL release, and also for each subsequent
> update?

Those procedures are being written even as we speak, and patches are 
being applied to the CentOS git repo.  SL developers are involved in the 
process.

> I am not concerned about anybody tampering with the git repo. I am
> concerned about how hard it is for third parties to create derivatives
> of Red Hat. (Note "derivatives of Red Hat", not "derivatives of
> CentOS".)

I'm surprised people didn't see this coming.  Seriously.  Red Hat has 
made it crystal clear that they want EL rebuilds to go through CentOS 
(or at least a centos.org git repo) to get EL upstream source (way back 
in January).  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why 
they've taken this step.  Go back and look at the reasoning for the EL 6 
kernel source packaging changes. They telephoned this one in, guys, back 
in January.

Note that I'm very pleased with the openness over at CentOS these days; 
and I'm very pleased to see SL devs involved.  Kudos to Pat and Connie 
(and any other SL dev that is involved that I'm forgetting) for being 
involved.  It is a learning curve for everyone involved at this point, 
that's for sure (I've been following the CentOS-devel list for a long 
time.....).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2