On 03/03/2017 12:42 PM, Fabien Boucher wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le 03/03/2017 à 12:20, Javier Pena a écrit :
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Le 27/02/2017 à 17:50, Fabien Boucher a écrit :
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> As we have started the effort to have all components, bundled in the SF
>>>> image, packaged
>>>> we are figuring out that EPEL and RDO repo are helpful as a bunch of
>>>> dependencies are
>>>> available there. Unfortunately on a SF installation if yum is freely usable
>>>> then
>>>> an operator can break its SF deployment if EPEL or RDO lands something that
>>>> break
>>>> an ABI.
>>>>
>>>> Usually it should not happen with EPEL as explain in the upgrade policy:
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Updates_Policy
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies
>>>>
>>>> RDO have stable releases that should not introduce ABI breakages over the
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Relying on both EPEL and RDO can increase the risk so it may be better to
>>>> only
>>>> rely on one of them and RDO includes stuff we care about like olso,
>>>> openstack clients ... (+ a lot of pkg from EPEL) so better to only rely on
>>>> RDO IMO.
>>>>

Agreed, and there is also optools that we should start consuming for ELK
and monitoring. Moreover this enables an extra layer of testing for
those SIGs which sounds like a bigger deal imo.


>>>> Also there's the solution of only relying on base centos managing the
>>>> deps by ourself but the work seems quite huge for a small team ... ?
>>>

This would requires quite some micro managing, in particular for
security issues...
Not sure that is worthy compared to fixing/pinning if/when things break :)

>>> What about, in that case, having the distro.yaml file that describes the 
>>> SRPM
>>> list
>>> like :
>>>
>>> extra-srpms:
>>>  -
>>>  
>>> http://cbs.centos.org/kojifiles/packages/python-pecan/1.1.2/1.el7/noarch/python2-pecan-1.1.2-1.el7.noarch.rpm
>>>  -
>>>  
>>> http://cbs.centos.org/kojifiles/packages/python-oslo-policy/1.18.0/1.el7/src/python-oslo-policy-1.18.0-1.el7.src.rpm
>>>  - ...
>>>
>>> That way we will have a self-sufficient SF RPM repo, like RDO where only 
>>> base
>>> and update centos
>>> repo are needed.
>>>

Having the few bits we use from epel listed as extra-srpms sounds like a
good idea, like that we avoid duplicate dependencies already provided by
rdo.
Also note that dependencies we packaged should be proposed in epel and
then simply listed as extra-srpms too, so that we only keep distgit that
are core to sf.

-Tristan

>>> We will need to take care of also adding the Build and Runtime deps for what
>>> we include in extra-srpms.
>>>
>>> A job, well a script, must fetch the srpms and build them in the specific
>>> target. If a srpms is already
>>> referenced in the target simply skip. If one has change (version changed)
>>> then:
>>> - koji remove-pkg
>>> - koji build
>>
>> I think this would work fine. I'm only concerned at how long will the srpm 
>> files stay in CBS, do you know if they are purged when they are old?
>>
>> Javier
> 
> Good question. This can be a blocker if a target need to be rebuilt later.
> I just checked on cbs and koji.fedoraproject.org and:
> 
> As id are incremental
> 
> http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=10
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=10
> 
> Both have a working srpm link. The latter is a task of 2007.
> So I guess by default there isn't any policies for cleaning them.
> 
> Fabien
> 
>>>
>>>> Also after discussing with Nico it can be safer to only enable
>>>> centos-update and
>>>> sf RPM repos and disable the rest at the end of the built of the image to
>>>> avoid eventual unexpected pkg bumps from RDO or even EPEL according to our
>>>> choice.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Fabien
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwarefactory-dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev
>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwarefactory-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Softwarefactory-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/softwarefactory-dev

Reply via email to