V Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:08:59PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): > When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the > hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL > modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up > with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or > even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL > is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but > have not worked. > > At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has > not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose > that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023. > > Steps: > 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other > ones required. > 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists. > 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to > /pub/archive/epel/8.YYYY-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for > that > 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8. > 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8. > 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules > 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 > modules > 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8 > 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned. > I heard a concern what to do with systems which use EPEL modules. What will happen after the modules disappear from EPEL repositories?
Thanks to fails-safe machanism in DNF, the metadata for enabled module streams will be preserved in DNF's local copy. Thus users who have installed the modules will have them visible in "dnf module list" output even after removing them from EPEL repository. So far good. Someone proposed that EPEL should actively try to disable the EPEL modules. Miro mentioned that the Fedora already did it once <https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/c/bfc4c31d8f625d4963a8169c9ba65686da7a4ce0?branch=f31> by editing DNF configuration from an RPM scriptlet. Question is whether EPEL should do it. If EPEL did it, users would lose their modules and, I think, DNF would start mixing modular and nonmodular packages. That could cause problems when upgading those systems. One would need to perform "dnf distrosync --allowerasing" to repair the system. There could also be a problem if RHEL decided to deliver a module stream with an identical name. EPEL would then keep disabling the RHEL module. I believe it's safer not to actively disable the streams on user's systems. What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list" could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal wouldn't see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever. Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it. Any opinions how to deal with obsoleting the installed modules? What currently does EPEL when a maintainer decides to drop a (nonmodular) package? -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
