 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:37:04 +0000 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Yeah, I know about email formatting. Still had to give it a try. :-)
Now that you mention it, I may not have updated the URLs for rc2. I¡¯ll
blame being on vacation last week and reading the announcement without
sufficient coffee. :-)
Resyncing both bin and source trees as we speak. I¡¯ll re-run against those
and report back ASAP.
On 7/13/16, 2:03 PM, "Connie Sieh" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Kraus, Dave (GE Healthcare) wrote:
>
>> (I don©öt know why I spent time fooling with formatting the below table
>> because email will turn it into an even more random collection of
>> gibberish, but oh well. And that©ös not exactly the diff output, but it
>>is
>> what it©ös supposed to be with proper alignment.)
>>
>
>Email alignment is a art not a science :-)
>
>> Functionally, our spin is working well in our lab testing.
>>
>> Given that, my concerns move to making sure we have all the sources
>> available, and according to my analysis, we seem to have some mismatches
>> still in the package sets I'm finding.
>>
>> I hope the following is helpful...
>>
>> Test setup
>> ----------
>>
>> Package sets retrieved via reposync.
>>
>> Repo Definitions:
>> -----------------
>>
>> [build-sl]
>> name=Scientific Linux 6.8 - x86_64
>>
>>baseurl=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__linux1.fnal.go
>>v_linux_scientific_6.8_x86-5F64_os&d=CwIDAw&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh
>>_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=CmDw8B-62WZksFsoRmLNMpkmXUpJTRShxC5GC1b9aIA&m=N62nU4o6
>>wX3Q24pTVUvhUEb-Qo69MQRfoNbAT9ekEFU&s=LtH5nr6gyl2BSjpew33RpziMIHb28p8P3BK
>>nAVsih4k&e=
>
>Can you try this with this url, the above url is a development version.
>We are in rc2 now so the below url is what will be published tomorrow.
>
>baseurl=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ftp1.scientifi
>clinux.org_linux_scientific_6.8_x86-5F64_os&d=CwIDAw&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHu
>ilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=CmDw8B-62WZksFsoRmLNMpkmXUpJTRShxC5GC1b9aIA&m=N
>62nU4o6wX3Q24pTVUvhUEb-Qo69MQRfoNbAT9ekEFU&s=9SYGGG7mFvzCLMoRb-31aU6QNjZyI
>exK9efH1JSy5P8&e=
>
>> enabled=0
>> gpgcheck=1
>> gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-sl
>> file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-sl6
>> file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-cern
>>
>> [build-sl-SRPMS]
>> name=Scientific Linux 6.8 - x86_64 Sources
>>
>>baseurl=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ftp1.scientif
>>iclinux.org_linux_scientific_6.8_SRPMS_&d=CwIDAw&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilR
>>gztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=CmDw8B-62WZksFsoRmLNMpkmXUpJTRShxC5GC1b9aIA&m=N62
>>nU4o6wX3Q24pTVUvhUEb-Qo69MQRfoNbAT9ekEFU&s=amK8W_IkRBSVzCyjzxfGIYh_Qa5TPH
>>RqPG5xgukDZyw&e=
>
>I have updated the following with the latest SRPMS
>
>baseurl=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ftp1.scientifi
>clinux.org_linux_scientific_6x_SRPMS_&d=CwIDAw&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgzt
>yh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=CmDw8B-62WZksFsoRmLNMpkmXUpJTRShxC5GC1b9aIA&m=N62nU4o
>6wX3Q24pTVUvhUEb-Qo69MQRfoNbAT9ekEFU&s=oj_u3FAxWd1vq1yjs8ldh9qlwVx6Tdggk3H
>fZ2ViF7U&e=
>
>> enabled=0
>> gpgcheck=1
>> gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-sl
>> file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-sl6
>> file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-cern
>>
>> Reposync Commands:
>> ------------------
>>
>> reposync -c scripts/yum.conf -r build-sl --norepopath -t -n
>>
>> reposync -c scripts/yum.conf -r build-sl-SRPMS --norepopath -t -n
>>
>> Analysis:
>> ---------
>>
>>
>> ls *.rpm | xargs -n 1 rpm -qp --qf "%{SOURCERPM}\n" | sort -u >
>> /tmp/bin64src.txt
>> find SRPMS -type f -name \*.src.rpm -exec basename \{\} \; | sort -u >
>> /tmp/srcs.txt
>> diff -y --suppress-common-lines /tmp/bin64src.txt /tmp/srcs.txt | tee -a
>> /tmp/srcdiffs.txt
>>
>
>I ran our SRPM verify program against our tree and did not find so many
>issues. That SRPM tree is not what you see so I have rsync'ed out
>our SRPMS tree to 6x/SRPMS/
>
>-connie
|
|
|
