* Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream @ 2021-01-03 20:17 Silvan Nagl 2021-01-03 21:31 ` Silvan Nagl 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-03 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard Hi, i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels. Will there be support for it? Greetings, Silvan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-03 20:17 Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-03 21:31 ` Silvan Nagl 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-03 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard My temporary solution is now to use kernel-ml. On 1/3/21 9:17 PM, Silvan Nagl wrote: > Hi, > > i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports > CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels. > Will there be support for it? > > Greetings, > > Silvan > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-03 20:17 Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream Silvan Nagl 2021-01-03 21:31 ` Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-04 12:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2021-01-12 9:57 ` Christopher Ng 1 sibling, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Doss @ 2021-01-04 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Silvan Nagl, wireguard https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. Joe On January 3, 2021 2:19:30 PM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote: > Hi, > > i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports > CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels. > Will there be support for it? > > Greetings, > > Silvan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss @ 2021-01-04 12:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld [not found] ` <CAL0FmdWzknetT9raQcr_BhJwSWSBKPxXZocHSr2TT6bz2QihSA@mail.gmail.com> ` (2 more replies) 2021-01-12 9:57 ` Christopher Ng 1 sibling, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2021-01-04 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Doss; +Cc: Silvan Nagl, WireGuard mailing list, Neal Gompa On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ > > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It > should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with: https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green. You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet. More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So, unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun. Anyway, as soon as they drop a new kernel and the CI is green again, I'll release. Or they ignored my patch and the CI will still be red. We'll see! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAL0FmdWzknetT9raQcr_BhJwSWSBKPxXZocHSr2TT6bz2QihSA@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream [not found] ` <CAL0FmdWzknetT9raQcr_BhJwSWSBKPxXZocHSr2TT6bz2QihSA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2021-01-04 19:42 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-04 20:25 ` Bruno Wolff III 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Doss @ 2021-01-04 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Craig, Jason A. Donenfeld Cc: Silvan Nagl, WireGuard mailing list, Neal Gompa On 1/4/21 1:20 PM, Jack Craig wrote: > how is fedora looking? is it stable enough for a small home network? It's in the Fedora kernel and I use it daily. It works great and it is very stable. Joe -- Joe Doss joe@solidadmin.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 19:42 ` Joe Doss @ 2021-01-04 20:25 ` Bruno Wolff III 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Bruno Wolff III @ 2021-01-04 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Doss Cc: Jack Craig, Jason A. Donenfeld, Silvan Nagl, WireGuard mailing list, Neal Gompa On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 13:42:22 -0600, Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: >On 1/4/21 1:20 PM, Jack Craig wrote: >> how is fedora looking? is it stable enough for a small home network? > >It's in the Fedora kernel and I use it daily. It works great and it is >very stable. Wireguard works fine in Fedora. I have two laptops that route everything but dhcp to my home router (no matter what network they are on) via a wireguard tunnel. My home router provides them with endpoints that have static IP addresses. I also use it for my work desktop so that I can reach it from home even though it is behind NAT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 12:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld [not found] ` <CAL0FmdWzknetT9raQcr_BhJwSWSBKPxXZocHSr2TT6bz2QihSA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2021-01-04 21:55 ` Jeffrey Walton 2021-01-05 11:25 ` Jonathan Aquilina ` (2 more replies) [not found] ` <CAH8yC8n-fC8MJxR7cA+otkqRyDZwhR7wz2Ni+-YTAgiKz7CRHA@53c70r.de> 2 siblings, 3 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Walton @ 2021-01-04 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ > > > > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It > > should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. > > It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with: > https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e > > But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to > continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green. > You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote > Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet. > > More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to > support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's > developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but > at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by > virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, > and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be > fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things > fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind > closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no > communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or > reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just > a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So, > unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream > nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun. From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than CentOS or Red Hat. Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a modern Apache, Python or PHP. Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/), which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I started using it back around F12 or F15. If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it would be wise to consider Fedora Server. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* RE: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 21:55 ` Jeffrey Walton @ 2021-01-05 11:25 ` Jonathan Aquilina 2021-01-05 18:35 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-05 18:14 ` Joe Doss [not found] ` <VE1PR08MB5837188C79F58A014916E123A0D10@53c70r.de> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Aquilina @ 2021-01-05 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: noloader, Jason A. Donenfeld; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list Hi, Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work station desktop with KDE installed. Regards, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: WireGuard <wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton Sent: 04 January 2021 22:55 To: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com> Subject: Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ > > > > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo > > enabled. It should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. > > It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with: > https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1 > 181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e > > But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to > continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green. > You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote > Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet. > > More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to > support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's > developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but > at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by > virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, > and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be > fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things > fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind > closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no > communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or > reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just > a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So, > unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream > nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun. From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than CentOS or Red Hat. Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a modern Apache, Python or PHP. Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/), which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I started using it back around F12 or F15. If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it would be wise to consider Fedora Server. Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-05 11:25 ` Jonathan Aquilina @ 2021-01-05 18:35 ` Joe Doss 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Doss @ 2021-01-05 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard On 1/5/21 5:25 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call > fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production > environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work > station desktop with KDE installed. It has a release about every 6 months [1], so I wouldn't call it a rolling release. You can use DNF System Upgrade to move up to the next release pretty easily with a bit of downtime. I have used Fedora a lot in production and I find that it works great. I don't consider it bleeding edge at all unless you run Fedora Rawhide [2]. If you are looking for a rolling release Fedora, checkout Fedora CoreOS [3], but that comes with some changes on how you use it since it is a container-focused operating system. The kernel that ships in Fedora has WireGuard included and the wireguard-tools package is in the main repo. IMO if you want to use a Red Hat variant of Linux with WireGuard, Fedora Server, Fedora Cloud [4], or Fedora CoreOS are your best choices. I use Fedora Server at home and Fedora CoreOS at work with WireGuard everyday. Joe [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide [3] https://getfedora.org/en/coreos?stream=stable [4] https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/ -- Joe Doss joe@solidadmin.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 21:55 ` Jeffrey Walton 2021-01-05 11:25 ` Jonathan Aquilina @ 2021-01-05 18:14 ` Joe Doss [not found] ` <VE1PR08MB5837188C79F58A014916E123A0D10@53c70r.de> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Doss @ 2021-01-05 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: wireguard On 1/4/21 3:55 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real > gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than > CentOS or Red Hat. Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools > and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a > modern Apache, Python or PHP. Same! I actually ran Fedora Cloud in production for 5 years at my previous job across AWS and GCP with about 400 VMs. We did 6mo OS refreshes and patching when needed. Fedora in production is super stable for my use cases. We're using Fedora CoreOS at my current job now and it's pretty great too. Joe -- Joe Doss joe@solidadmin.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <VE1PR08MB5837188C79F58A014916E123A0D10@53c70r.de>]
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream [not found] ` <VE1PR08MB5837188C79F58A014916E123A0D10@53c70r.de> @ 2021-01-06 9:32 ` Silvan Nagl 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-06 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Aquilina; +Cc: wireguard I'm kinda amazed by Fedora Server at this point. +1 for recommendation. On 1/5/21 12:25 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Hi, > > Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work station desktop with KDE installed. > > Regards, > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: WireGuard <wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton > Sent: 04 January 2021 22:55 > To: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> > Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com> > Subject: Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: >>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ >>> >>> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo >>> enabled. It should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. >> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with: >> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1 >> 181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e >> >> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to >> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green. >> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote >> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet. >> >> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to >> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's >> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but >> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by >> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, >> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be >> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things >> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind >> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no >> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or >> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just >> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So, >> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream >> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun. > From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than CentOS or Red Hat. Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a modern Apache, Python or PHP. > > Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/), > which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I started using it back around F12 or F15. > > If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it would be wise to consider Fedora Server. > > Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAH8yC8n-fC8MJxR7cA+otkqRyDZwhR7wz2Ni+-YTAgiKz7CRHA@53c70r.de>]
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream [not found] ` <CAH8yC8n-fC8MJxR7cA+otkqRyDZwhR7wz2Ni+-YTAgiKz7CRHA@53c70r.de> @ 2021-01-05 13:06 ` Silvan Nagl 2021-01-05 13:56 ` Jeffrey Walton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-05 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: noloader; +Cc: wireguard Thank you for this information. Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all. Gonna test it soon. On 1/4/21 10:55 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: >>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ >>> >>> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It >>> should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. >> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with: >> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e >> >> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to >> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green. >> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote >> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet. >> >> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to >> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's >> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but >> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by >> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, >> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be >> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things >> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind >> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no >> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or >> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just >> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So, >> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream >> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun. > From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real > gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than > CentOS or Red Hat. Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools > and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a > modern Apache, Python or PHP. > > Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/), > which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I > started using it back around F12 or F15. > > If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it > would be wise to consider Fedora Server. > > Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-05 13:06 ` Silvan Nagl @ 2021-01-05 13:56 ` Jeffrey Walton 2021-01-05 14:58 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Walton @ 2021-01-05 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Silvan Nagl; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:06 AM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote: > > Thank you for this information. > Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am > convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all. > > Gonna test it soon. Yeah, I think you'll like it. I got tired of dicking around with all the breaks and workarounds caused by Red Hat and CentOS antique software. I also did not feel comfortable with abandoned kernels. I don't understand how Red Hat or CentOS can provide a 2.6 or 3.10 kernel in good conscience. Even the kernel folks tell you to use a modern kernel, because those old kernels get no attention. The new kernels get the bug fixes and security updates (and include the bug fixes of the old kernels). Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-05 13:56 ` Jeffrey Walton @ 2021-01-05 14:58 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen @ 2021-01-05 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: noloader, Silvan Nagl; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:06 AM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote: >> >> Thank you for this information. >> Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am >> convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all. >> >> Gonna test it soon. > > Yeah, I think you'll like it. > > I got tired of dicking around with all the breaks and workarounds > caused by Red Hat and CentOS antique software. I also did not feel > comfortable with abandoned kernels. > > I don't understand how Red Hat or CentOS can provide a 2.6 or 3.10 > kernel in good conscience. Even the kernel folks tell you to use a > modern kernel, because those old kernels get no attention. The new > kernels get the bug fixes and security updates (and include the bug > fixes of the old kernels). The version number for RHEL kernels is completely fictional. IIRC we backport 1/3 of all patches in each new kernel release, but keep the version number fixed and do an insane amount of engineering to keep the internal kernel ABI stable in spite of the backports. We can argue about whether this is a reasonable thing to do in the first place (and I'm not sure I'll actually argue that it is), but it's wrong to think of RHEL kernels as "ancient with no security updates"... :) -Toke ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-04 12:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld @ 2021-01-12 9:57 ` Christopher Ng 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Christopher Ng @ 2021-01-12 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Doss; +Cc: WireGuard mailing list dkms doesn't work on CentOSStream at the moment: DKMS make.log for wireguard-1.0.20201221 for kernel 4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64 (x86_64) Tue 12 Jan 09:55:51 GMT 2021 make: Entering directory '/usr/src/kernels/4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64' CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/main.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/noise.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/device.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/peer.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/timers.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/queueing.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/send.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/receive.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/socket.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/peerlookup.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/allowedips.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/ratelimiter.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/cookie.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/netlink.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20/chacha20.o PERLASM /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64.S CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/poly1305/poly1305.o PERLASM /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/poly1305/poly1305-x86_64.S CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20poly1305.o CC [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s.o AS [M] /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.o In file included from <command-line>: /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:44: warning: "SYM_FUNC_START" redefined #define SYM_FUNC_START ENTRY In file included from /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:9, from <command-line>: ./include/linux/linkage.h:218: note: this is the location of the previous definition #define SYM_FUNC_START(name) \ In file included from <command-line>: /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:45: warning: "SYM_FUNC_END" redefined #define SYM_FUNC_END ENDPROC In file included from /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:9, from <command-line>: ./include/linux/linkage.h:265: note: this is the location of the previous definition #define SYM_FUNC_END(name) \ /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S: Assembler messages: /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:50: Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:176: Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:180: Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:257: Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:415: /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make: *** [Makefile:1545: _module_/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build] Error 2 make: Leaving directory '/usr/src/kernels/4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64' On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 01:26, Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote: > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/ > > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It > should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues. > > Joe > > On January 3, 2021 2:19:30 PM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports > > CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels. > > Will there be support for it? > > > > Greetings, > > > > Silvan > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-12 10:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-03 20:17 Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream Silvan Nagl 2021-01-03 21:31 ` Silvan Nagl 2021-01-04 1:24 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-04 12:47 ` Jason A. Donenfeld [not found] ` <CAL0FmdWzknetT9raQcr_BhJwSWSBKPxXZocHSr2TT6bz2QihSA@mail.gmail.com> 2021-01-04 19:42 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-04 20:25 ` Bruno Wolff III 2021-01-04 21:55 ` Jeffrey Walton 2021-01-05 11:25 ` Jonathan Aquilina 2021-01-05 18:35 ` Joe Doss 2021-01-05 18:14 ` Joe Doss [not found] ` <VE1PR08MB5837188C79F58A014916E123A0D10@53c70r.de> 2021-01-06 9:32 ` Silvan Nagl [not found] ` <CAH8yC8n-fC8MJxR7cA+otkqRyDZwhR7wz2Ni+-YTAgiKz7CRHA@53c70r.de> 2021-01-05 13:06 ` Silvan Nagl 2021-01-05 13:56 ` Jeffrey Walton 2021-01-05 14:58 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen 2021-01-12 9:57 ` Christopher Ng
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.