[PlanetCCRMA] (re)building the PlanetCCRMA srpms for CentOS

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 18:43 -0600, Wade Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:21:51 -0800, "Fernando Lopez-Lezcano"
> <nando@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> said:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 17:13 -0600, Wade Nelson wrote:
> > > I'm starting to try my hand at rebuilding the PlanetCCRMA SRPMS for
> > > CentOS 5, and I had a couple questions:
> > > 
> > > 1) Would it be better to apply the PlanetCCRMA kernel patchset to the
> > > latest CentOS kernel or do a straight rebuild of one of the PlanetCCRMA
> > > kernel SRPMS? 
> > 
> > Probably a straight rebuild and hope that userland in centos5 is not too
> > old to support the latest kernels. That is the problem of centos, long
> > term. 
> > 
> > > I'm leaning towards applying the patches to the CentOS
> > > kernels just for the sake of keeping as close as possible to the CentOS
> > > base (the latest PlanetCCRMA kernels are kernel versions significantly
> > > newer than what CentOS ships).
> > 
> > The problem with that approach is that the versions of the realtime
> > patches that you will be able to apply are very old. 
> > 
> > I could try a rebuild of the latest kernel (which I just released for
> > Fedora 8 and plan on releasing for Fedora 7 & 6) for CentOS 5. Would you
> > be able to try it out? I did rebuild older versions as a trial under
> > CentOS a while back and they seemed to work fine. 
> 
> I haven't kept up with kernel changes all that much, but I iirc the
> newer kernels use a new libata stack that labels all hard disks as
> /dev/sd* whereas CentOS's version still uses the /dev/hd* scheme for IDE
> drives. 

Oh, yes, I take care of that. In < fc7 the config files are changed at
build time so that the old IDE driver is used. So no problems there. I'm
running 2.6.22 on fc6 with no problems (and have to try a recent build
of 2.6.23) - and centos5 is based on fc6. But of course at some point it
is going to break, or need help with userland upgrades. 

> (Just a sample reason why I was hoping to stick with patching
> the CentOS kernels rather than somehow backport more recent Fedora
> versions)  Little things like this could render the kernel unbootable. 
> I'm not sure if there are other discrepancies, but as kernel versions
> climb while CentOS sits around 2.6.18 more are likely to surface.
> 
> > > 2) Is there a specific build order that needs to be followed, or are the
> > > "BuildRequires" and "Requires" for the SRPMS all set up properly?
> > 
> > They should be set up properly. I do have a script tied into my build
> > system that recursively builds, I'm using it as I type to rebuild for 8.
> > I could send you the output of a fake run which should point out the
> > dependencies. 
> 
> Yeah, that'd be helpful ;)
> 
> > > I probably won't get started on this until Thursday. 
> > 
> > You mean tomorrow? Or a week from now?
> 
> Tomorrow, the 15th, at the earliest.  Actually Friday or this weekend is
> more probable.
> 
> > > I know a few
> > > others have tried PlanetCCRMA packages on CentOS5 but afaik nobody has
> > > done a full rebuild yet, so I'll post my progress back here. 
> > 
> > Well, Arnaud has a big chunk done I think. 
> > Maybe here?:
> >   http://rpms.ircam.fr/centos/
> > 
> > > I'll also
> > > keep track of packages that may be needed which aren't in the standard
> > > CentOS repos (i.e. stuff from EPEL or Fedora).
> > 
> > I wonder how we could sync on this effort. Both Arnaud and I are
> > interested and it would be great to leverage the effort into a full
> > repository. 
> > 
> > We were emailing off the list yesterday talking about this very same
> > thing. I had the idea of trying to set up koji but has already tried it
> > and was quite difficult. I have not had time yet to try (busy with f8
> > right now)
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > 
> I haven't dealt with any repository/package management tools like koji
> (unless you count createrepo).  CVS seems a bit messy.  Personally I
> have plenty of bandwidth but my upload is terribly slow (5 to 10 KB/s)
> so I was initially planning on rebuilding the whole shebang until I'm
> satisfied that everything seems to be working fine and then tracking
> down a place to upload the resulting packages to be hosted.
> 
> P.S.: Why the alsa-driver packages instead of the in-kernel driver? 
> Just curious.

You mean the kmod-alsa packages? I used those to override the in-kernel
drivers. So that things like very new mobo's have more chance of working
(if you don't install them you use the in-kernel ones). 

-- Fernando