On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso < amora...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayu...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM Paul Belanger <pabelan...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:16:04PM +0200, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Alan Pevec <ape...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > I think having the two separated images is the only way we can >>> ensure we >>> > > are not polluting the image in the initial phase with packages newer >>> that >>> > > in the stabilized repo. >>> > > >>> > > This should be a small list, are any of those actually included in >>> the >>> > > base image? >>> > > >>> > >>> > Yes, the list is small but we can't be sure if it will change at some >>> > point, and analysing if we are having one of those cases on each >>> change is >>> > too error prone, IMO. >>> > >>> > >>> > > Alternatively, which jobs use "normal" f28 images, could we switch >>> > > them to use "stabilized" f28 ? >>> > > >>> > >>> > fedora-stable has the required packages to run and build python3 >>> packages. >>> > Currently it's missing some requirements for the jobs running on >>> fedora 28 >>> > image although it's something we could work on. >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Alan >>> > > >>> > >>> > Maybe I'm underestimating the cost of maintaining two different images >>> for >>> > fedora, but my understanding is that the resources the extra image >>> uses and >>> > the effort to maintain is workable. Please, correct me if i'm wrong. >>> >>> I wouldn't say minimal, but there is a cost. With fedora-29 around the >>> corner, >>> it does mean we have 2 iamges to update now, over one. How long does >>> this image >>> need to live for? When can we get to a point of just using the default >>> fedora >>> image? >>> >>> - Paul >>> >> >> Hey guys, >> Slight tangent, but wondering how far out we are from the CI team having >> to get involved here? Is there any planning required at this point? >> >> > AFAIK, before getting CI involved to create a job to build container we > need to get patches merged in kolla to build containers for fedora/python3. > I'm not sure if there is a ETA for it. Adding Martin to CC, he may have > some estimation for it. > There is absolutely no chance this patch [1] merges into kolla as it. It's a very ugly hack where I'm basically swapping the centos binary distro to be based on fedora:28. The idea was to prove feasibility and for you to have a patch you can pull in your build pipeline that allowed you to build fedora:28 based images. Integrating fedora based images in kolla properly would require a lot more work, and that's not really something I'm keen to do since it would send the wrong message that kolla supports fedora base. Does it sound reasonable? Martin [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/582290/ > >> Thanks >> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev mailing list >>> dev@lists.rdoproject.org >>> http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >>> To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org >>> >> -- >> >> Wes Hayutin >> >> Associate MANAGER >> >> Red Hat >> >> <https://www.redhat.com/> >> >> w <cclay...@redhat.com>hayu...@redhat.com T: +1919 <+19197544114> >> 4232509 IRC: weshay >> <https://red.ht/sig> >> >> View my calendar and check my availability for meetings HERE >> <https://calendar.google.com/calendar/b/1/embed?src=whayu...@redhat.com&ctz=America/New_York> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@lists.rdoproject.org > http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org > >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.rdoproject.org http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org