Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: CentOS on wildfire
From: Robin Humble (rjh+axpcita.utoronto.ca)
Date: Sun Aug 13 2006 - 22:27:19 CDT
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:11:34PM +0300, Pasi Pirhonen wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 05:33:02AM -0400, Robin Humble wrote:
>> we're trying to get CentOS 4.3 up on our gs320 (32 ev67 731MHz,
>> 64G ram) but have been struggling a bit for several days now.
>> are there any recent wildfire success stories out there? (apart from
>> the one boot in 2000)
>Actualluy i wouldn't try too hard as i've EOL'ed the CentOS-4/axp
>myself and i don't know if anyone is even going to continue mainatining
>it. If not, it's end of story in few weeks (August 2006).
oh, ok - I missed this:
>I am sorry, but it's how it is now.
I'm sorry too.
thanks very much for all your work on CentOS/alpha.
Re: your alpha core suggestion:
generally we run fedora on desktops and we run RHEL on servers. servers
don't need sparkly new shiny gui bits but they do need the long support
lifetimes. as we have no alpha desktops then CentOS is really the only
thing we're interested in.
as we really want the gcc openmp functionality available in RHEL U4,
I'll probably start building the U4 rpms (CentOS 4.4) for our machines
and putting them into a yum repo for myself. on a 32-way machine they
should build fairly quickly :)
if it's not much more trouble then I can find/apply CentOS patches to
remove the RH references (where are these patches?) and then make the
repos public if anyone is interested.
if this happens it'd be nice to feed this work back into the general
CentOS distro, but I have no idea how hard that would be...
keeping up with new RHEL srpms for CentOS 4 shouldn't be too hard as
long as there's no major patching involved. firefox and the kernel are
the likely trouble spots - would that be a fair statement?
I don't actually need those on a server running a kernel.org kernel so
(as an individual) I'd be happy to skip them. but if a community is
trying to maintain a full CentOS 4.4+ then obviously that's not good
I can't see myself having the time or inclination to tackle CentOS 5
for alpha though... at least not for a few years until CentOS 4 is
BTW, wildfire success/failure stories still welcome! :)
axp-list mailing list