You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by jan i <ja...@apache.org> on 2014/12/09 17:31:54 UTC
CentOS build box.
Hi
FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by the
infra Contractors.
Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
rgds
jan i.
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:56:31AM -0800, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to
> >> ver 5?
> >>
> >
> > It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
> > commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac),
> > but if there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should
> > remain the same.
> >
> > Regards, Andrea.
>
>
> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
> for this environment. I will be following up on a different thread
> about this.
This has already been asked and answered:
http://markmail.org/message/gkrf5kemhflx2wax
(April 2013, no wonder why this is comatose, almost)
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Friday, December 19, 2014, Michal Hriň <hr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dňa 19.12.2014 o 01:18 Kay Schenk napísal(a):
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 02:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> Michal Hriň wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
>>>>>>> for this environment. I will be following up on a different thread
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> this. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.centos.org/Download
>>>>
>>>
>>> No need for a different thread, Michal's link says it all: CentOS 5 will
>>> have security updates (even if limited to "important" security updates)
>>> until 2017. The latest release of CentOS 5 is 5.11 from September 2014
>>> (so, more recent than the most recent OpenOffice version). That said, I
>>> have nothing against bumping our baseline when appropriate (i.e., not in
>>> 4.1.x) if there are valid reasons for it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>
>>
> If I understand correctly,
>
> Good news. One of my concerns has been with the CERT advisories that
>> have emerged concerning glibc, now up to before version 2.21.
>>
>>
> No need to have concerns, about version of packages in enterprise linux.
> Packages have different version number than upstream. Example:
>
> glibc 2.10+6168464, but this package may contain security issues founded
> from 2.21+
>
>
> And, of course we should check out our other needed sources -- openssl,
>> etc. Hopefully I can get to that soon and report back.
>>
>>
> I think that we are using lot of ours own libraries (and bundle it to
> package), which are different from libraries in operating system.
> "external_dep" is that .. (openssl 0.9.7? which is absolutely different
> form Cent 5 ssl library).
actually we do that a lot, which really complicates our build requirements,
so I would really like to reduce extern_dep to a bare minimum. It has
grown (I think) because if one platform missed a library all platforms got
it in extern_dep.
rgds
jan i
>
> - MH
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Michal Hriň <hr...@apache.org>.
Dňa 19.12.2014 o 01:18 Kay Schenk napísal(a):
>
>
> On 12/18/2014 02:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Michal Hriň wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
>>>>>> for this environment. I will be following up on a different thread
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> this. ...
>>> http://wiki.centos.org/Download
>>
>> No need for a different thread, Michal's link says it all: CentOS 5 will
>> have security updates (even if limited to "important" security updates)
>> until 2017. The latest release of CentOS 5 is 5.11 from September 2014
>> (so, more recent than the most recent OpenOffice version). That said, I
>> have nothing against bumping our baseline when appropriate (i.e., not in
>> 4.1.x) if there are valid reasons for it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>
If I understand correctly,
> Good news. One of my concerns has been with the CERT advisories that
> have emerged concerning glibc, now up to before version 2.21.
>
No need to have concerns, about version of packages in enterprise linux.
Packages have different version number than upstream. Example:
glibc 2.10+6168464, but this package may contain security issues founded
from 2.21+
> And, of course we should check out our other needed sources -- openssl,
> etc. Hopefully I can get to that soon and report back.
>
I think that we are using lot of ours own libraries (and bundle it to
package), which are different from libraries in operating system.
"external_dep" is that .. (openssl 0.9.7? which is absolutely different
form Cent 5 ssl library).
- MH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 12/18/2014 02:22 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Michal Hriň wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
>>>>> for this environment. I will be following up on a different thread
>>>>> about
>>>>> this. ...
>> http://wiki.centos.org/Download
>
> No need for a different thread, Michal's link says it all: CentOS 5 will
> have security updates (even if limited to "important" security updates)
> until 2017. The latest release of CentOS 5 is 5.11 from September 2014
> (so, more recent than the most recent OpenOffice version). That said, I
> have nothing against bumping our baseline when appropriate (i.e., not in
> 4.1.x) if there are valid reasons for it.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Good news. One of my concerns has been with the CERT advisories that
have emerged concerning glibc, now up to before version 2.21.
And, of course we should check out our other needed sources -- openssl,
etc. Hopefully I can get to that soon and report back.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's a bit of magic in everything,
and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Michal Hriň wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
>>>> for this environment. I will be following up on a different thread about
>>>> this. ...
> http://wiki.centos.org/Download
No need for a different thread, Michal's link says it all: CentOS 5 will
have security updates (even if limited to "important" security updates)
until 2017. The latest release of CentOS 5 is 5.11 from September 2014
(so, more recent than the most recent OpenOffice version). That said, I
have nothing against bumping our baseline when appropriate (i.e., not in
4.1.x) if there are valid reasons for it.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Michal Hriň <hr...@apache.org>.
Dňa 18.12.2014 o 20:46 Michal Hriň napísal(a):
>
>
> Dňa 18.12.2014 o 20:20 jan i napísal(a):
>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver
>>> 5?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
>>>> commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac),
>>>> but if
>>>> there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should remain the
>>>> same.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates
>>> for
>>> this environment. I will be following up on a different thread about
>>> this.
>>
>>
>> Does anybody know what the official EOL for centOS 5 is?
>>
>
> When you try to download CentOS here is written "Legacy versions of
> CentOS are no longer supported." ... But the .iso files for older
> release is available like 5.11 or 6.6. What about updates, don't know
> I'm using v.7.
>
> RHEL 5 is supported until March 31, 2017 and extended support to 2020.
>
> https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
>
http://wiki.centos.org/Download
> - MH
>
>
>> I could not find an official answer with google, but a centOS person told
>> me its mid 2015.
>>
>> rgds
>> jan i
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "There's a bit of magic in everything,
>>> and some loss to even things out."
>>> -- Lou Reed
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Michal Hriň <hr...@apache.org>.
Dňa 18.12.2014 o 20:20 jan i napísal(a):
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver
>> 5?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
>>> commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac), but if
>>> there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should remain the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>
>>
>> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates for
>> this environment. I will be following up on a different thread about this.
>
>
> Does anybody know what the official EOL for centOS 5 is?
>
When you try to download CentOS here is written "Legacy versions of
CentOS are no longer supported." ... But the .iso files for older
release is available like 5.11 or 6.6. What about updates, don't know
I'm using v.7.
RHEL 5 is supported until March 31, 2017 and extended support to 2020.
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
- MH
> I could not find an official answer with google, but a centOS person told
> me its mid 2015.
>
> rgds
> jan i
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "There's a bit of magic in everything,
>> and some loss to even things out."
>> -- Lou Reed
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Kay Schenk wrote:
> >
> >> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver
> 5?
> >>
> >
> > It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
> > commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac), but if
> > there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should remain the
> > same.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andrea.
>
>
> My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates for
> this environment. I will be following up on a different thread about this.
Does anybody know what the official EOL for centOS 5 is?
I could not find an official answer with google, but a centOS person told
me its mid 2015.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's a bit of magic in everything,
> and some loss to even things out."
> -- Lou Reed
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver 5?
>>
>
> It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
> commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac), but if
> there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should remain the
> same.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
My main concern at this point is the availability of security updates for
this environment. I will be following up on a different thread about this.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's a bit of magic in everything,
and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Kay Schenk wrote:
> I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver 5?
It is our baseline (our reference platform). So it is part of our
commitment to users. The baseline can change (we did it for Mac), but if
there are no strong technical reasons for doing it is should remain the
same.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> On 16/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>
>> On 16 December 2014 at 18:05, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> Can we do something in parallel, like preparing a VM offline? And
>>> what format should it be in? These are probably stupid questions, but if
>>> we
>>> know that then we can look for help with clearer ideas.
>>>
>> Well assuming tethys is avialable, putting ubuntu on it is 1-2hours work
>> (with ldap puppet etc), VMs can be prepared offline,the popular
>> hypervisors
>> all have format conversion tools so thats not a problem. The hypervisor
>> could be whatever the maintainer knows best (e.g. kvm). Preparing a vm is
>> also 1-2hours.
>>
>
> Coming to doing: I can prepare a CentOS 5 VM (64 bit) during the weekend,
> with the same disk layout as the current CentOS 6 VM and with the same sshd
> configuration. I will need information on how the network is supposed to be
> configured, since ideally I'd like to have it working out of the box at
> Apache. Then others can go on and configure it, but Ariel was already
> working on it before noticing we had the wrong version of CentOS.
>
> Of course, before that we should ensure that we still have tethys
> available and that it already has a supported (by Infra, I mean) 64-bit
> Linux system as the host (or that one is installed via the standard Infra
> processes). Should this paragraph go to an Infra JIRA?
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Good news! It really is inevitable that we need this.
I would really like to know at some point why we're so tethered to ver 5?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's a bit of magic in everything,
and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 16/12/2014 jan i wrote:
> On 16 December 2014 at 18:05, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Can we do something in parallel, like preparing a VM offline? And
>> what format should it be in? These are probably stupid questions, but if we
>> know that then we can look for help with clearer ideas.
> Well assuming tethys is avialable, putting ubuntu on it is 1-2hours work
> (with ldap puppet etc), VMs can be prepared offline,the popular hypervisors
> all have format conversion tools so thats not a problem. The hypervisor
> could be whatever the maintainer knows best (e.g. kvm). Preparing a vm is
> also 1-2hours.
Coming to doing: I can prepare a CentOS 5 VM (64 bit) during the
weekend, with the same disk layout as the current CentOS 6 VM and with
the same sshd configuration. I will need information on how the network
is supposed to be configured, since ideally I'd like to have it working
out of the box at Apache. Then others can go on and configure it, but
Ariel was already working on it before noticing we had the wrong version
of CentOS.
Of course, before that we should ensure that we still have tethys
available and that it already has a supported (by Infra, I mean) 64-bit
Linux system as the host (or that one is installed via the standard
Infra processes). Should this paragraph go to an Infra JIRA?
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 16 December 2014 at 18:05, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> jan i wrote:
>
>> Now we have the next issue CentOS 5 versus CentOS 6. It is correct that
>> the
>> ticket is quite clear, so INFRA should have asked (and I dont know how
>> this
>> happened, at hipchat we actually discussed CentOS 5).
>>
>
> I see it as a simple misunderstanding, nothing more: the discussion about
> a "CentOS 5 VM" became a discussion about the "CentOS VM" and at a certain
> point a CentOS 6 VM was set up, for mere lack of communication. But our
> baseline is CentOS 5, so surely we will need CentOS 5. CentOS 6 or the
> latest Ubuntu is equivalent: it is a Linux system higher than our baseline.
> [For the record, this can't be your fault at all: I spent hours talking to
> Gavin years ago, before you got involved with Infra; and of course the
> problem is that we let too much time pass and details were lost]
>
I have not seen any of this as my fault at all, I am just trying to make
sure we keep infra happy, while getting what we need.
>
> We could easily have a directory with old gLibC library and header files.
>>
>
> I don't know if it is easy: glibc was an example, but other libraries are
> in the same situation.
>
> Please remember we are not talking a vm for runtime, but a buildbot.
>>
>
> While we are configuring a VM+buildbot from scratch, it would make a lot
> of sense to align it with our release options, so that builds produced by
> that buildbot are equal to our standard builds. Our current Linux buildbots
> already produce builds that are compatible with newer systems only, but
> when configuring a new one it would be good to align the two.
>
> Another little hickup, I can see multiple people have commented on the
>> ticket, but if infra should do something, it might be a good idea to open
>> the ticket.
>>
>
> Ahem... good suggestion! Well, if we decide that the right way is to go
> for tethys then I'll reopen the ticket.
>
> As I see it (still being positive) we have several options
>> a) Leave centOS 6, and install old gLibC, which will give us a buildbot
>> for
>> both centOS 5 and centOS6.
>> b) Ask INFRA to redo the job, someone should reopen the ticket
>> c) Ask INFRA to get tethys back (a physical machine), then we can have all
>> the VMs there as we want (INFRA-6217)
>>
>
> Option A seems not optimal: we want our 4.1.x builds (for sure; and
> possibly later ones too) to build on CentOS 5, so I don't see a big benefit
> in "simulating" CentOS 5 on CentOS 6 when we can have the real one.
>
> If we want a fast result we should go for a), but if we want something
>> that
>> can be expanded we should go for c). I have asked infra about c), which
>> just happens to be the ticket pescetti refers to.
>>
>
> Realistically, how big is option C in comparison to option A? Weeks vs.
> hours? Can we do something in parallel, like preparing a VM offline? And
> what format should it be in? These are probably stupid questions, but if we
> know that then we can look for help with clearer ideas.
>
Well assuming tethys is avialable, putting ubuntu on it is 1-2hours work
(with ldap puppet etc), VMs can be prepared offline,the popular hypervisors
all have format conversion tools so thats not a problem. The hypervisor
could be whatever the maintainer knows best (e.g. kvm). Preparing a vm is
also 1-2hours.
I have an ubuntu with 11 VMs that I spin up/down as needed. The challenge
for me, was to have only 1 svn directory, so I did not need to make "svn
up" when the VM started, I have that now and it saves me a lot of time when
I start a multi platform generation. I have a mixture of linux systems, 2
windows systems and a android system...so this could for sure replace all
the build slaves we use now....and we would be in control, no discussions
about whether a library would break another projects setup.
>
> So much about the technical issues, now to my real concern.
>> Could we not try to change attitude.....complaining and telling what does
>> not work, is not exactly a good way to get things moving. We are pretty
>> good at making people who try to help very very tired.
>>
>
> Let me disagree about the attitude (not in general, but in this case).
> Actually in this case people were doing stuff and not complaining. I
> created the account for Ariel, Ariel started setting up the environment and
> then figured out it was the wrong system version. At this point we need a
> decision and then we can surely resume work. In this case, there are surely
> people ready to work.
>
Well before you created the account, it seemed to be pure complaints, just
look at all the comments on the ticket. So the real work that has been
happening boils down to you creating an account, and Ariel checking the
system version.
>
> We dont get a community up and running, by telling each other all the
>> mistakes we do....it would be a lot more efficient to help each other.
>>
>
> We are here to help. I'm not a big fan of option A simply because I have a
> different setup on my machine (if I need a CentOS 5 setup, I install a
> CentOS 5 VM and that's it), which is not a really compelling reason. If you
> say it's better to go for A rather than C in our situation, A is fine. If
> you say that in this weekend, working together, we can have a CentOS 5 VM
> setup as per option C, I would surely go for option C.
Not only centOS in different versions (32/64) but also windows and other
linux flavours, that is the nice thing about VMs.
rgds
jan i.
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
jan i wrote:
> Now we have the next issue CentOS 5 versus CentOS 6. It is correct that the
> ticket is quite clear, so INFRA should have asked (and I dont know how this
> happened, at hipchat we actually discussed CentOS 5).
I see it as a simple misunderstanding, nothing more: the discussion
about a "CentOS 5 VM" became a discussion about the "CentOS VM" and at a
certain point a CentOS 6 VM was set up, for mere lack of communication.
But our baseline is CentOS 5, so surely we will need CentOS 5. CentOS 6
or the latest Ubuntu is equivalent: it is a Linux system higher than our
baseline. [For the record, this can't be your fault at all: I spent
hours talking to Gavin years ago, before you got involved with Infra;
and of course the problem is that we let too much time pass and details
were lost]
> We could easily have a directory with old gLibC library and header files.
I don't know if it is easy: glibc was an example, but other libraries
are in the same situation.
> Please remember we are not talking a vm for runtime, but a buildbot.
While we are configuring a VM+buildbot from scratch, it would make a lot
of sense to align it with our release options, so that builds produced
by that buildbot are equal to our standard builds. Our current Linux
buildbots already produce builds that are compatible with newer systems
only, but when configuring a new one it would be good to align the two.
> Another little hickup, I can see multiple people have commented on the
> ticket, but if infra should do something, it might be a good idea to open
> the ticket.
Ahem... good suggestion! Well, if we decide that the right way is to go
for tethys then I'll reopen the ticket.
> As I see it (still being positive) we have several options
> a) Leave centOS 6, and install old gLibC, which will give us a buildbot for
> both centOS 5 and centOS6.
> b) Ask INFRA to redo the job, someone should reopen the ticket
> c) Ask INFRA to get tethys back (a physical machine), then we can have all
> the VMs there as we want (INFRA-6217)
Option A seems not optimal: we want our 4.1.x builds (for sure; and
possibly later ones too) to build on CentOS 5, so I don't see a big
benefit in "simulating" CentOS 5 on CentOS 6 when we can have the real one.
> If we want a fast result we should go for a), but if we want something that
> can be expanded we should go for c). I have asked infra about c), which
> just happens to be the ticket pescetti refers to.
Realistically, how big is option C in comparison to option A? Weeks vs.
hours? Can we do something in parallel, like preparing a VM offline? And
what format should it be in? These are probably stupid questions, but if
we know that then we can look for help with clearer ideas.
> So much about the technical issues, now to my real concern.
> Could we not try to change attitude.....complaining and telling what does
> not work, is not exactly a good way to get things moving. We are pretty
> good at making people who try to help very very tired.
Let me disagree about the attitude (not in general, but in this case).
Actually in this case people were doing stuff and not complaining. I
created the account for Ariel, Ariel started setting up the environment
and then figured out it was the wrong system version. At this point we
need a decision and then we can surely resume work. In this case, there
are surely people ready to work.
> We dont get a community up and running, by telling each other all the
> mistakes we do....it would be a lot more efficient to help each other.
We are here to help. I'm not a big fan of option A simply because I have
a different setup on my machine (if I need a CentOS 5 setup, I install a
CentOS 5 VM and that's it), which is not a really compelling reason. If
you say it's better to go for A rather than C in our situation, A is
fine. If you say that in this weekend, working together, we can have a
CentOS 5 VM setup as per option C, I would surely go for option C.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
Hi
I should have foreseen it, the last couple of days have contained quite a
number of complaints in my inbox about the new centOS vm. A lot of the
complaints could have been answered with "please read the ticket and the
comments, before making a new comment", instead I have tried to patiently
answer each complain positively.
Now we have the next issue CentOS 5 versus CentOS 6. It is correct that the
ticket is quite clear, so INFRA should have asked (and I dont know how this
happened, at hipchat we actually discussed CentOS 5).
But I honestly still dont get the real problem, we want to compile
(actually link) with a specific version of gLibc what does that have to
with the version of the OS ?
We could easily have a directory with old gLibC library and header files.
On my ubuntu 14.04, I have directories going back to ubuntu 10.x. Changing
gLibC is merely setting an environment variable.
Please remember we are not talking a vm for runtime, but a buildbot.
Another little hickup, I can see multiple people have commented on the
ticket, but if infra should do something, it might be a good idea to open
the ticket.
As I see it (still being positive) we have several options
a) Leave centOS 6, and install old gLibC, which will give us a buildbot for
both centOS 5 and centOS6.
b) Ask INFRA to redo the job, someone should reopen the ticket
c) Ask INFRA to get tethys back (a physical machine), then we can have all
the VMs there as we want (INFRA-6217)
If we want a fast result we should go for a), but if we want something that
can be expanded we should go for c). I have asked infra about c), which
just happens to be the ticket pescetti refers to.
So much about the technical issues, now to my real concern.
Could we not try to change attitude.....complaining and telling what does
not work, is not exactly a good way to get things moving. We are pretty
good at making people who try to help very very tired.
Just a few simple tips:
- read the whole ticket before telling what does not work
- try to formulate things positively and tell what you want to do to
help the situation
- think "how can I turn this FOO, which is wrong, into something that
can actually benefit us all"
- maybe remember to write "thank you" from time to time (a INFRA
contractor, actually spent time solving the ticket).
(just to be clear, my involvement was merely to be part of the
discussion)
We dont get a community up and running, by telling each other all the
mistakes we do....it would be a lot more efficient to help each other.
I am used to this, so I am beyond the point where I react when my inbox
fills with these complaints. So please dont read the above as "jan is once
more offended", he is not.....but I am scared about the culture we have at
the moment which to me seems to more about finding excuses to why things do
not work, than to actually do something about them.
rgds
jan i.
On 16 December 2014 at 09:20, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> If we
>> agree that the best way is to put a modern, ASF-supported, Linux system
>> on tethys and then use it as a host for two virtualized buildbot
>> environments based on CentOS 5 (32 and 64 bit), let it be.
>>
>
> Adding some context: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6217
> has all details and explanations for the need for CentOS 5. So that one
> would be the discussion to pick up again.
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> If we
> agree that the best way is to put a modern, ASF-supported, Linux system
> on tethys and then use it as a host for two virtualized buildbot
> environments based on CentOS 5 (32 and 64 bit), let it be.
Adding some context: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6217
has all details and explanations for the need for CentOS 5. So that one
would be the discussion to pick up again.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> [arielch@bb-centos-vm ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release
> CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
> The Linux base requires a Centos 5 system
Sure it does. Probably the detail got lost months ago when Jan built
that VM.
Well, I think we now have the opportunity to explore options. If we
agree that the best way is to put a modern, ASF-supported, Linux system
on tethys and then use it as a host for two virtualized buildbot
environments based on CentOS 5 (32 and 64 bit), let it be. Probably Jan
is in the best position to suggest what can be done in a short timeframe.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 29 May 2015 at 00:57, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/15/2014 03:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:31:54PM +0100, jan i wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot
> >> for AOO) took a huge jump today, and are very near completion.
> >> This was done by the infra Contractors.
> >>
> >> Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific
> >> buildbot parts.
> >
> > Bad news:
> >
> > [arielch@bb-centos-vm ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release
> > 6.6 (Final)
> >
> > The Linux base requires a Centos 5 system, see
> > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
>
> A very old thread indeed and STILL needed for linux builds. This
> particular host, bb-centos-vm, does not seem to respond at the moment.
> And we STILL need 32 bit as well. Can we get some advice from one of
> our "infra" friends here?
>
> We really can't do much in the way of planning for 4.1.2 without the
> buildbots we need for distribution -- unless I'm missed some important
> announcement.
>
I think we were lucky that gmcdonald used some of his private time to help
get
some of the buildbots back online.
I do believe we have used all our "free mileage" and more with infra, we
should
get our own parts in order before requesting more resources.
As far as I know, macOs is also part of our release, and I believe the Mac
Boxes
are still not operational, so maybe we should start there. Once the
buildbots we
have run, then it is time to expand.
a fast check on status says:
fbsd failed
win7 failed
mac cannot be found
Please also do not forget we have files on trunk (reported by gmcdonald)
that misses
a license header, that is a real release blocker.
rgds
jan I.
>
> - --
> - --------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
> somewhere at any given time,
> the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
> -- David Letterman
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVZ51cAAoJEJ8zlgVF1GcuLkUH/jH0XMe2+gLvMWLhMRC7PiBw
> zhf77+xewXdYAgALjHbr3CAisBurKaMlrS0HKsmlk+zuyFt9NwCHL9B8/VuAjqa0
> Tq5gEgEZNj0a9U5N5PXB2T4PBnw8gXr/BJpj50Y1eJ6bleZ8eQeFwZE2xD4pd03d
> yIVsi6h8Lhj/GZRdg9i0SKj+mGhl4HoGDRpg3knh1sWJQjt4IhIQ2vkEf9X9e5W0
> QfFIQMVb2CjqWYy24pXt86ltjXXP0XEaFX+1KKSVXL5S5Q6DauR/lICbb8IpDsng
> C3+WBifm1/IXsJyoIbnpiMP3kbw19I0FCkXlNXPR1EwABHQJGq6PDx0MByAWCQI=
> =utcC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/15/2014 03:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:31:54PM +0100, jan i wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot
>> for AOO) took a huge jump today, and are very near completion.
>> This was done by the infra Contractors.
>>
>> Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific
>> buildbot parts.
>
> Bad news:
>
> [arielch@bb-centos-vm ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release
> 6.6 (Final)
>
> The Linux base requires a Centos 5 system, see
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385
>
>
> Regards
>
A very old thread indeed and STILL needed for linux builds. This
particular host, bb-centos-vm, does not seem to respond at the moment.
And we STILL need 32 bit as well. Can we get some advice from one of
our "infra" friends here?
We really can't do much in the way of planning for 4.1.2 without the
buildbots we need for distribution -- unless I'm missed some important
announcement.
- --
- --------------------------------------------
MzK
"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
somewhere at any given time,
the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
-- David Letterman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVZ51cAAoJEJ8zlgVF1GcuLkUH/jH0XMe2+gLvMWLhMRC7PiBw
zhf77+xewXdYAgALjHbr3CAisBurKaMlrS0HKsmlk+zuyFt9NwCHL9B8/VuAjqa0
Tq5gEgEZNj0a9U5N5PXB2T4PBnw8gXr/BJpj50Y1eJ6bleZ8eQeFwZE2xD4pd03d
yIVsi6h8Lhj/GZRdg9i0SKj+mGhl4HoGDRpg3knh1sWJQjt4IhIQ2vkEf9X9e5W0
QfFIQMVb2CjqWYy24pXt86ltjXXP0XEaFX+1KKSVXL5S5Q6DauR/lICbb8IpDsng
C3+WBifm1/IXsJyoIbnpiMP3kbw19I0FCkXlNXPR1EwABHQJGq6PDx0MByAWCQI=
=utcC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:31:54PM +0100, jan i wrote:
> Hi
>
> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
> took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by the
> infra Contractors.
>
> Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
Bad news:
[arielch@bb-centos-vm ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release
CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
The Linux base requires a Centos 5 system, see
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:10:12PM +0100, jan i wrote:
> > It looks like you already have access, could you add access for me,
> > please? I'd like to help with this VM and the MacOSX set up.
> talk with arist about the MAC box.
I would have guessed that INFRA controls the access to this kind of
resources, and anyone willing to help would be granted access, no need
to go ask an individual. Anyway I'm setting arist on Cc
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 15 December 2014 at 15:29, Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi Jan, *,
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:06:01PM +0100, jan i wrote:
> > On 14 December 2014 at 18:40, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is due to the simple fact that this vm is not in ldap nor does
> it run
> > >> puppet, These are not mandatory (only makes life easier).
> > >>
> > >
> > > OK, so where do I login? I mean, I assume there is an account
> "pescetti"
> > > on that machine and that my SSH key has been copied to it (based on
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) but I have no idea
> of
> > > what machine (FQDN/IP) it is.
> >
> >
> > There seems to be some general confusion, so let me extract some of the
> > information from the ticket:
> >
> > Machine name: bb-centos-vm.apache.org
> > type: centos 5 64bit
> > infra: not using LDAP (manual user management),
> > not using puppet (manual package updates)
> > no backup.
> >
> > Users+sudo: jan iversen, andrea pescetti, andrew rist, and kay schenk
> > access: ssh (ssh keys have been uploaded for the above users)
> >
> > The project can freely add more users locally (remember to upload peoples
> > ssh key)
>
> It looks like you already have access, could you add access for me,
> please? I'd like to help with this VM and the MacOSX set up.
>
I can do that next time I have ssh available, but I guess andrea will beat
me to it.
The Mac boxes are solely in the hands of arist, I dont even have the names.
>
> > The vm need to have AOO installed together with buildbot sw and then
> > connected to the buildbot master.
>
> Can you elaborate on this, or point to the docs to read? Also, what
> should I do to access the MacOSX buildbot?
>
I should have said AOO development system, all are dependencies and I
assume things like svn.
talk with arist about the MAC box.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jan, *,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 03:06:01PM +0100, jan i wrote:
> On 14 December 2014 at 18:40, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
> >
> >> That is due to the simple fact that this vm is not in ldap nor does it run
> >> puppet, These are not mandatory (only makes life easier).
> >>
> >
> > OK, so where do I login? I mean, I assume there is an account "pescetti"
> > on that machine and that my SSH key has been copied to it (based on
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) but I have no idea of
> > what machine (FQDN/IP) it is.
>
>
> There seems to be some general confusion, so let me extract some of the
> information from the ticket:
>
> Machine name: bb-centos-vm.apache.org
> type: centos 5 64bit
> infra: not using LDAP (manual user management),
> not using puppet (manual package updates)
> no backup.
>
> Users+sudo: jan iversen, andrea pescetti, andrew rist, and kay schenk
> access: ssh (ssh keys have been uploaded for the above users)
>
> The project can freely add more users locally (remember to upload peoples
> ssh key)
It looks like you already have access, could you add access for me,
please? I'd like to help with this VM and the MacOSX set up.
> The vm need to have AOO installed together with buildbot sw and then
> connected to the buildbot master.
Can you elaborate on this, or point to the docs to read? Also, what
should I do to access the MacOSX buildbot?
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
jan i wrote:
> On 14 December 2014 at 18:40, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> OK, so where do I login? I mean, I assume there is an account "pescetti"
>> on that machine and that my SSH key has been copied to it (based on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) but I have no idea of
>> what machine (FQDN/IP) it is.
> There seems to be some general confusion, so let me extract some of the
> information from the ticket:
> Machine name: bb-centos-vm.apache.org ...
> Users+sudo: jan iversen, andrea pescetti, andrew rist, and kay schenk
> access: ssh (ssh keys have been uploaded for the above users)
I tried that before your mail
$ slogin -i [path-to-private-key-per-id.apache.org]
pescetti@bb-centos-vm.apache.org
but it didn't work for me. Of course, username is still missing in all
our conversation, but I assume that the username is "pescetti", nothing
else would make sense.
Update: the issue was with my local SSH settings which were conflicting.
I now had a few minutes for this and I managed to login and run sudo.
> The project can freely add more users locally (remember to upload peoples
> ssh key)
Let's keep it maintainable. At least, before creating accounts we e-mail
each other (the four having access now), OK?
> The vm need to have AOO installed together with buildbot sw and then
> connected to the buildbot master.
AOO installed? In the sense of a build environment for OpenOffice (not
OpenOffice itself), right?
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 14 December 2014 at 18:40, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>
>> That is due to the simple fact that this vm is not in ldap nor does it run
>> puppet, These are not mandatory (only makes life easier).
>>
>
> OK, so where do I login? I mean, I assume there is an account "pescetti"
> on that machine and that my SSH key has been copied to it (based on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) but I have no idea of
> what machine (FQDN/IP) it is.
There seems to be some general confusion, so let me extract some of the
information from the ticket:
Machine name: bb-centos-vm.apache.org
type: centos 5 64bit
infra: not using LDAP (manual user management),
not using puppet (manual package updates)
no backup.
Users+sudo: jan iversen, andrea pescetti, andrew rist, and kay schenk
access: ssh (ssh keys have been uploaded for the above users)
The project can freely add more users locally (remember to upload peoples
ssh key)
The vm need to have AOO installed together with buildbot sw and then
connected to the buildbot master.
rgds
jan i.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
> That is due to the simple fact that this vm is not in ldap nor does it run
> puppet, These are not mandatory (only makes life easier).
OK, so where do I login? I mean, I assume there is an account "pescetti"
on that machine and that my SSH key has been copied to it (based on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) but I have no idea of
what machine (FQDN/IP) it is.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 jan i wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
>>>> took a huge jump today, and are very near completion.
>>>>
>>>
> Thanks for the news! Well, indeed it was almost impossible for us to
> notice, good that you forwarded it here.
>
> I apparently have SSH access (so says https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) and likewise Kay and arist. But I don't see
> anything listed at id.apache.org about this. What is the machine dns or
> IP? I've probably done enough builds on CentOS systems to be able to help
> (with availability of time being, of course, the real problem).
That is due to the simple fact that this vm is not in ldap nor does it run
puppet, These are not mandatory (only makes life easier). infra wanted to
deliver the vm to AOO, so that hey were not hindering the project in making
releases, AOO can if wanted add ldap and puppet.
>
> as I wrote in an earlier mail we (AOO) had the chance to do all these
>> special platforms as vm on tethys, but there was no interest at that time.
>>
>
> I have a similar setup, so I agree this could work. I don't know where
> this was lost, but nobody wrote tethys was not an option. So certainly we
> don't need new hardware if we want to add to the new 64-bit CentOS machine
> a 32-bit machine hosted somewhere else at Apache. But I recommend to choose
> what our priorities are (see previous mail) before listing desiderata that,
> as you say, are probably overkill at the moment.
just look in the mail archives, there you will see the original proposal
for this from me and the ok from infra, but nobody was interested in
helping so it silently died.
Theoretically tethys is still AOO hardware should anybody have the desire.
rgds
jan i
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 11/12/2014 jan i wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
>>> took a huge jump today, and are very near completion.
Thanks for the news! Well, indeed it was almost impossible for us to
notice, good that you forwarded it here.
I apparently have SSH access (so says
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8768 ) and likewise Kay and
arist. But I don't see anything listed at id.apache.org about this. What
is the machine dns or IP? I've probably done enough builds on CentOS
systems to be able to help (with availability of time being, of course,
the real problem).
> as I wrote in an earlier mail we (AOO) had the chance to do all these
> special platforms as vm on tethys, but there was no interest at that time.
I have a similar setup, so I agree this could work. I don't know where
this was lost, but nobody wrote tethys was not an option. So certainly
we don't need new hardware if we want to add to the new 64-bit CentOS
machine a 32-bit machine hosted somewhere else at Apache. But I
recommend to choose what our priorities are (see previous mail) before
listing desiderata that, as you say, are probably overkill at the moment.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 12/10/2014 03:35 PM, jan i wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
>>> took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by
>> the
>>> infra Contractors.
>>>
>>> Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan i.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the update. Can we get a status update on the 32-bit CentOS 5
>> VM?
>
> there are no open jira for AOO buildbots, so it is not being worked on. I
> believe That I said this earlier. I would strongly recommend to get the
> centos 64 and the mac installed before requesting additinal resources.
>
> as I wrote in an earlier mail we (AOO) had the chance to do all these
> special platforms as vm on tethys, but there was no interest at that time.
>
> rgds
> jan i
>
OK. I missed the implications of the previous post.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's a bit of magic in everything,
and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
> > took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by
> the
> > infra Contractors.
> >
> > Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i.
> >
>
> Thanks for the update. Can we get a status update on the 32-bit CentOS 5
> VM?
there are no open jira for AOO buildbots, so it is not being worked on. I
believe That I said this earlier. I would strongly recommend to get the
centos 64 and the mac installed before requesting additinal resources.
as I wrote in an earlier mail we (AOO) had the chance to do all these
special platforms as vm on tethys, but there was no interest at that time.
rgds
jan i
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's a bit of magic in everything,
> and some loss to even things out."
> -- Lou Reed
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: CentOS build box.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 12/09/2014 08:31 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi
>
> FYI, in case you have not noticed. INFRA-8768 (centOS buildbot for AOO)
> took a huge jump today, and are very near completion. This was done by the
> infra Contractors.
>
> Time to find somebody, that will install the AOO specific buildbot parts.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
>
Thanks for the update. Can we get a status update on the 32-bit CentOS 5 VM?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"There's a bit of magic in everything,
and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org