iptables-devel in centos 4.4

Hi,
I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is going to be
patched by
CentOS team to include all header files. Upstream provider
still seems
to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5. We need to fix
it to
simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel modules.
Thanks,
David Hrbac
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:39 +0200, David Hrbáč wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is going to
be patched by
> CentOS team to include all header files. Upstream
provider still seems
> to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5. We need
to fix it to
> simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel modules.
> Thanks,
> David Hrbac

Nope ... we build what they provide ... including bugs/
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

David Hrb�c wrote:
> I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is going to
be patched by
> CentOS team to include all header files. Upstream
provider still seems
> to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5. We need
to fix it to
> simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel modules.

I'm cc'd on that bug.  Someone from Redhat added this
"flag" that is
invisible on the bug report, but I got this email hinting it
may be done for
4.5...

-----Original Message-----
From: bugzillaredhat.com [mailto:bugzillaredhat.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:08 AM
To: gregswallowskynetonline.ca
Subject: [Bug 178417] missing iportant header files form the
devel package

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.

Summary: missing iportant header files form the devel
package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
178417


larocheredhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
               Flag|                            |rhel-4.5?



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Greg Swallow - SkyNet wrote:

> David Hrb�c wrote:
> > I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is
going to be patched by
> > CentOS team to include all header files. Upstream
provider still seems
> > to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5. We
need to fix it to
> > simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel
modules.
> 
> I'm cc'd on that bug.  Someone from Redhat added this
"flag" that is
> invisible on the bug report, but I got this email
hinting it may be done for
> 4.5...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugzillaredhat.com [mailto:bugzillaredhat.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:08 AM
> To: gregswallowskynetonline.ca
> Subject: [Bug 178417] missing iportant header files
form the devel package
> 
> Please do not reply directly to this email. All
additional
> comments should be made in the comments box of this bug
report.
> 
> Summary: missing iportant header files form the devel
package
> 
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
178417
> 
> 
> larocheredhat.com changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
>                Flag|                           
|rhel-4.5?
> 

So does one expect with the new timelines that RedHat has
announced that 
we will not see RHEL 4.5 for about 6 months?

-Connie Sieh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-develcentos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:56 -0500, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Greg Swallow - SkyNet wrote:
> 
> > David Hrbác wrote:
> > > I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is
going to be patched by
> > > CentOS team to include all header files.
Upstream provider still seems
> > > to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5.
We need to fix it to
> > > simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel
modules.
> > 
> > I'm cc'd on that bug.  Someone from Redhat added
this "flag" that is
> > invisible on the bug report, but I got this email
hinting it may be done for
> > 4.5...
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bugzillaredhat.com
[mailto:bugzillaredhat.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:08 AM
> > To: gregswallowskynetonline.ca
> > Subject: [Bug 178417] missing iportant header
files form the devel package
> > 
> > Please do not reply directly to this email. All
additional
> > comments should be made in the comments box of
this bug report.
> > 
> > Summary: missing iportant header files form the
devel package
> > 
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
178417
> > 
> > 
> > larocheredhat.com changed:
> > 
> >            What    |Removed                    
|Added
> >
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
> >                Flag|                           
|rhel-4.5?
> > 
> 
> So does one expect with the new timelines that RedHat
has announced that 
> we will not see RHEL 4.5 for about 6 months?
> 
> -Connie Sieh

I'm not sure if those apply starting now or after the 4.5
release when
they start the 4.5.0 then 4.5.1 & 4.6.0 then 4.5.2 &
4.6.1 & 4.7.0 ...
etc.



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Johnny Hughes napsal(a):
> 
> Nope ... we build what they provide ... including bugs/

Hmm, I'm asking because I have developed yumfirst plugin
for Karanbir
and it depends on a function, which is not implemented in
centos yum.
Karanbir has been talking about backporting. So are we going
to use
backports or not? To backport or not to backport, that's
the question. 

I guess better way is to provide centosplus iptables-devel
package.
David Hrbac
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

David Hrbáč wrote:
> Johnny Hughes napsal(a):
> > 
> > Nope ... we build what they provide ... including
bugs/
> 
> Hmm, I'm asking because I have developed yumfirst
plugin for Karanbir
> and it depends on a function, which is not implemented
in centos yum.
> Karanbir has been talking about backporting. So are we
going to use
> backports or not? To backport or not to backport,
that's the question. 

But yum isn't taken from upstream, as they still use
up2date, so making
changes to yum doesn't really contradict what Johnny said
up there. 

> I guess better way is to provide centosplus
iptables-devel package.
 
That probably would be the better way to do it, yes.

Ralph
-- 
Ralph Angenendt......rabr-online.de | .."Text processing
has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....to right-justify
any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be
justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 |
..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:32 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> David Hrbáč wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes napsal(a):
> > > 
> > > Nope ... we build what they provide ...
including bugs/
> > 
> > Hmm, I'm asking because I have developed yumfirst
plugin for Karanbir
> > and it depends on a function, which is not
implemented in centos yum.
> > Karanbir has been talking about backporting. So
are we going to use
> > backports or not? To backport or not to backport,
that's the question. 
> 
> But yum isn't taken from upstream, as they still use
up2date, so making
> changes to yum doesn't really contradict what Johnny
said up there. 
> 

Exactly ... we added yum to CentOS, and it is really the
lone
"functional" difference between CentOS and
upstream.  Since we added
yum, we can do things to it that we _WILL_NEVER_ do to
packages that are
included in the upstream product.  (like backport
functionality, etc.)

> > I guess better way is to provide centosplus
iptables-devel package.
>  
> That probably would be the better way to do it, yes.
> 

If we need iptables-devel, then centosplus is indeed the
mechanism to
make that happen.
 
> Ralph

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:46:38PM -0500, Johnny Hughes
wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:39 +0200, David Hrb�� wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to ask if iptables-devel package is
going to be patched by
> > CentOS team to include all header files. Upstream
provider still seems
> > to ignore this bug, even it was fixed in FC5. We
need to fix it to
> > simplify automatic build of iptables/kernel
modules.
> > Thanks,
> > David Hrbac
> 
> Nope ... we build what they provide ... including bugs/

It's not a BUG! You are servind missing devel packages too.
So your
strong oposition should be rethinked.

I wonder - you have rules and exceptions. Why do you simply
do not put
differencies ro the RELEASE-NOTES and join CentOS/RPMS and
addons?
Separate dir is worthless because you have yum and i586
kernels in
CentOS/RPMS already. So this "rule" isn't
working from the start
already.

I suggest distro and updates only.

Then think about Extras, Plus and Contrib. This is really
too
complicated.

-- 
                        Milan Kerslager
                        E-mail: milan.kerslagerpslib.cz
                        WWW:    http://www.pslib.cz/ke/
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Milan Keršláger wrote:
> I wonder - you have rules and exceptions. Why do you
simply do not put
> differencies ro the RELEASE-NOTES and join CentOS/RPMS
and addons?
> Separate dir is worthless because you have yum and i586
kernels in
> CentOS/RPMS already. So this "rule" isn't
working from the start
> already.

yum is there, because the architecture behind up2date (vulgo
RHN) just
isn't there, as it is *not* free software. The i586 kernel
cannot go
into a separate repository, as that won't be usable at
install time --
yes, that is a change regarding to the stuff upstream
delivers.

> I suggest distro and updates only.

It would be against the CentOS goals - look at
www.centos.org.

> Then think about Extras, Plus and Contrib. This is
really too
> complicated.

Stuff which *really* differs from upstream -- meaning that
it
*overwrites* stuff which comes from upstream -- has to go to
centosplus,
if at all. 

Ralph
-- 
Ralph Angenendt......rabr-online.de | .."Text processing
has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....to right-justify
any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be
justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 |
..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel