Hi Scott,

I noticed in the black_list, there are a couple of RPMs (such as erlang*-R16B*.rpm”), which were in tis-r4-CentOS mirror but were NOT used since tis-r5-CentOS.

As well, we are certain they are not needed for building R5 or current StarlingX codebase.

Could we just drop them?

BTW: in tis-r5-CentOS mirror, there are over 30,000 RPMs, while actually among those only ~1900 RPMs are necessary.

regards,

Yong

From: Scott Little <scott.little@windriver.com>
Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 11:17 PM
To: "starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX.repo using CentOS 7.3 binary repos instead of 7.4?

StarlingX should be based on Centos 7.4 for the vast majority of packages.  I think there are a dozen that have made the move to 7.5.  There are also a few that we blacklisted and are pulling from earlier releases.

I'll attach my black_list notes as they exist today.  I'll have to audit them to make sure my notes are up to date.

Scott




On 18-07-18 10:47 AM, Penney, Don wrote:

Hi all,

The StarlingX.repo file in stx-tools has all the CentOS 7.4.1708 binary repos disabled and is instead using 7.3.1611. This would likely explain why some of the specified RPMs cannot be downloaded via yum, as they were upversioned in 7.4.

Was this done for a particular reason, or is it a configuration error?

Don Penney, Developer, Wind River

_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io
http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss