Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||||||||
CentOS 6.2 released
We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CentOS-6.2 for i386 and x86_64 Architectures. Release Notes for 6.2 are available at http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS6.2 - we recommend everyone looks through those once. CentOS-6.2 is based on the upstream release EL 6.2 and includes packages from all variants. All upstream repositories have been combined into one, to make it easier for end users to work with. All updates released since upstream 6.2 release are also released to the CentOS-6.2 mirrors. With this release we are now back to a regular, managed and tested release path and time scales. However, for the time being, we are going to retain the CR/ repo in the event its needed in the future to push ahead-of-release updates. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Upgrading from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5: We recommend everyone run through a reinstall rather than attempt an inplace upgrade from CentOS-4 or CentOS-5 +++++++++++++++++++++++ Downloading CentOS-6.2 for new installs: When possible, consider using torrents to run the downloads. In most cases you will find its also the fastest means to download the distro. There are currently over a thousand people seeding CentOS-6 and it's possible to get upto 400mbps downloads via these torrents. Torrent files for the DVD's are available at : http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.2/isos/i386/CentOS-6.2-... http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.2/isos/x86_64/CentOS-6.... You can also use a mirror close to you : http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=30 Most mirrors will allow direct DVD downloads over http, ftp and rsync. Please keep in mind that not all mirrors are currently updated, some might take upto another 24 hours before they have all the content. +++++++++++++++++++++++ sha1sum for the CentOS-6.2 ISOS: i386: ad741581b3d3969bcf867cf1e47160902c8876f6 CentOS-6.2-i386-bin-DVD1.iso 6131d4c8ca2be77a25eaf1c61f94c7500786e683 CentOS-6.2-i386-bin-DVD2.iso 353d7e070a4cfc34148f9610b05cf1c55ad4fa57 CentOS-6.2-i386-minimal.iso 02444d6984089d9fc16ca989781482c8202357f0 CentOS-6.2-i386-netinstall.iso x86_64: d97377c83fab7493dbd1c2e04dab29c8ba6cd351 CentOS-6.2-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso 7eac42c403725891b53cd899f0ef7560dc3a9d72 CentOS-6.2-x86_64-bin-DVD2.iso 10b26ce414af86be26f3a47dcc76d8f81e333979 CentOS-6.2-x86_64-minimal.iso 4858a8870cc5048876edd51dead25b9c718fcfbe CentOS-6.2-x86_64-netinstall.iso +++++++++++++++++++++++ Sources and Debuginfo packages: SRPMS and debuginfo packages are released to vault.centos.org - A separate announcement will be send through about how we are changing the way we handle srpms and debuginfo rpms from here on in order to improve the overall user experience. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Getting Help: The best place to start when looking for help with CentOS is at the wiki ( http://wiki.centos.org/GettingHelp ) which lists various options and communities who might be able to help. If you think there is a bug in the system, do report it at http://bugs.centos.org/ - but keep in mind that the bugs system is *not* a support mechanism. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Contributing and joining the project: We are always looking for people to join and help with various things in the project. If you are keen to help out a good place to start is the wiki page at http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute . If you have questions or a specific area you would like to contribute towards that is not covered on that page, feel free to drop in on #centos-devel@irc.freenode.net for a chat or email the centos-devel list (http://lists.centos.org). +++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks to everyone who contributed towards making 6.2, specially the enormous effort put in by everyone on the QA team - right on the heels of the 6.1 release. And the excellent work being done on the test-automation. I would personally like to thank my wife, who puts up with all sorts of strange work hours and sacrifices personal time, often, in favour of letting me put in more efforts into CentOS. Enjoy! -- Karanbir Singh <kbsingh@centos.org> The CentOS Project {http://www.centos.org} irc: z00dax@irc.freenode.net ( #centos, #centos-devel ) (Log in to post comments)
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 21, 2011 0:22 UTC (Wed) by gbritton (guest, #81905) [Link]
Yay, an empty directory. I think it's been since sometime around CentOS 5.1 or 5.2 since we've had debuginfo for release packages. They used to provide debuginfo packages for updates, but never got around to uploading the ones for release packages. It would at least be useful to have debuginfo for packages such as glibc, and gcc (libgcc, libstdc++, etc). This (http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3622) issue has been open in their issue tracking system since sometime in 2009 with still no fix.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2011 0:46 UTC (Fri) by hughesjr (guest, #29949) [Link]
What Now ... you need me to install it on your server too?
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 20, 2011 22:53 UTC (Tue) by leemgs (subscriber, #24528) [Link]
Wow. It's very good news for personal developers that can't buy because of money really. But It's strange. I am using RHEL 6 client with a subscription.
I think that Redhat released RHEL 6.2 beta version without official release on Oct-10-2011. Is it official release without beta version that CENTOS community distributed? It seems that current Centos 6.2 is similar to RHEL 6.2 Beta.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 21, 2011 0:20 UTC (Wed) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
RHEL 6.2 was released about two weeks ago... and yes the CentOS 6.2 release is based on the final RHEL 6.2 release.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 21, 2011 17:40 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
This is very fantastic news. I am happy. It makes a lot of things easier for me. I am genuinely surprised.
Thank you CentOS folks.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 22, 2011 12:35 UTC (Thu) by djzort (guest, #57189) [Link]
with the redhat branding stripped - i cant see how it takes so much time to run the rhel6 srpm's through mock?
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2011 10:20 UTC (Fri) by buchanmilne (guest, #42315) [Link] Well, they did it one day faster than Oracle
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2011 15:30 UTC (Fri) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
If you haven't tried/done it yourself, there is more to it than just "running srpms through mock". CentOS tries their hardest to be as binary compatible with Red Hat as possible. Things would be more simple if creating a new major release only took a few days... but going from one major release to another takes a 18-36 months... and during that time library versions can and do change. As a result, the binaries that Red Hat provides aren't necessarily compiled with the same versions of things that they ship. It is just a natural process of building things over time... rather than some barrier Red Hat tries to create. The number of problematic packages is usually quite small compared to the overall number of packages.
It is less of an issue between minor releases and most dramatic with a new major release.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2011 18:31 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if redhat is shipping binaries compiled against different libraries than what they ship in the final release, that would seem to me to be a significant flaw in the redhat build process.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2011 19:02 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
gcc links against glibc, so if you want gcc to be built against the shipped glibc you need to rebuild it after every glibc build. But glibc is built with gcc, so you want to rebuild glibc after you've rebuilt gcc just in case you've triggered a bug that breaks glibc builds. This is not a straightforward set of problems to solve.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 26, 2011 21:09 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
Yes.
I remember from doing Gentoo a while back that you have to essentially build the base system three times if you want to ensure that everything was built with the same version of everything else.
Quite time consuming and not usually worth the bother.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 27, 2011 17:24 UTC (Tue) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
Also you don't have to rebuild the "base system" three times when you update anything or everything on Gentoo. Just not true.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 27, 2011 17:50 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Thats not what he said. Read again what you are replying to.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 27, 2011 22:43 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
It takes a lot of time for a single system to do so, but remember that most of the distro doesn't need to be run through this multi-pass loop, just the build tools. With a farm of systems to spread the compile across it shouldn't take that long.
It would seem to me that for simple repeatability reasons, they would want to go through this process.
Does anyone have any idea what the practices of the other distros are?
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 27, 2011 23:19 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
How do you guarantee you've reached stability? Various binaries end up with timestamps embedded in them, so a naive approach will fail. It's also not implausible to imagine cyclical situations where there's no unique stable outcome. So if what you're looking for is "Everything in the release is built against the release", that's an amazing amount of work for very little benefit.
This is kind of done deal... Posted Dec 28, 2011 8:46 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Timestamps are mostly embedded in debug info and does not affect compatibility all that much. GCC compares binaries of "stage2" and "stage3", for example. Android compares the whole distribution to make sure it can be effectively rebuilt (they mark volatile files). Few years back it was effectively impossible because GCC sorted pointers and thus details of malloc implementation affected build, but AFAIK all these problems are fixed now (it was the only way to have reproducible build on both Linux and Mac). Thus we know that effort will be substantial, but not overwhelming and that there are stable outcome. Simply because people altered code to make it possible. The question "should RedHat actually do that" is different question, of course.
This is kind of done deal... Posted Jan 9, 2012 20:34 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Few years back it was effectively impossible because GCC sorted pointersNo, it never did that. What it did do was hash things by address in some places, and use that in the optimization passes, so that repeated runs with the same input and flags could lead to different generated code with the same behaviour. (The more egregious examples of this have always been rapidly weeded out because it breaks the bootstrap comparison, but if addresses are used in such a way that they usually sort in the same direction, they can avoid breaking bootstrap for a long time.)
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Jan 27, 2012 18:32 UTC (Fri) by mfedyk (guest, #55303) [Link]
Debian has this exact same problem as well. There have been several reports in the past of packages in debian stable not building against stable.
CentOS 6.2 released Posted Dec 24, 2011 9:56 UTC (Sat) by hughesjr (guest, #29949) [Link]
They do it all the time.
RHEL has never been self hosting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||