12:03 p.m.
Hi,
This patch removes the sub_process.py module which was included in the
cobbler distribution.
Also removed all references to it and changed the spec file and bumped
the python version to >= 2.4
https://github.com/jmaas/cobbler/commit/c8cfd499e5a7c408f2008a9493a63b343...
Grtz,
Jörgen Maas
9:36 p.m.
Will this break RHEL4?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jörgen Maas <jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This patch removes the sub_process.py module which was included in the
cobbler distribution.
Also removed all references to it and changed the spec file and bumped
the python version to >= 2.4
https://github.com/jmaas/cobbler/commit/c8cfd499e5a7c408f2008a9493a63b343...
Grtz,
Jörgen Maas
_______________________________________________
cobbler-devel mailing list
cobbler-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler-devel
9:39 p.m.
On 2011-06-19 19:36, James Cammarata wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jörgen
Maas<jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch removes the sub_process.py module which was included in the
> cobbler distribution.
> Also removed all references to it and changed the spec file and bumped
> the python version to>= 2.4
Will this break RHEL4?
Yes, it will.
9:46 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2011-06-19 19:36, James Cammarata wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jörgen Maas<jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This patch removes the sub_process.py module which was included in the
>> cobbler distribution.
>> Also removed all references to it and changed the spec file and bumped
>> the python version to>= 2.4
>
> Will this break RHEL4?
Yes, it will.
I thought it might. RHEL4 has 9 months of life left, and even then
people may be installing it when paying for extended support. We can't
remove this yet, and I'm thinking we should keep it around for at
least a year after RHEL4 goes EOL. It's not breaking anything to have
it, if I remember right - cobbler tries to import the existing
subprocess module if it exists, and if not imports the packaged one.
1:41 a.m.
Ok, i didn't know that RHEL4 support is a requirement ;). What's the
policy about platform support then? As far as i can tell it's not
documented anywhere, ideally this stuff should be in the roadmap...
Afterall this patch is against a development version of cobbler. The
stable releases (2.0.x) would still be available for the few
installing cobbler on RHEL4. Any thoughts on this?
Btw, the sub_process.py removal was suggested 5 months ago in:
https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/ticket/632
The ticket is still under review.
Grtz,
Jörgen Maas
7:08 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Jörgen Maas <jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, i didn't know that RHEL4 support is a requirement ;).
What's the
policy about platform support then? As far as i can tell it's not
documented anywhere, ideally this stuff should be in the roadmap...
As far as I know, there is no official policy on this. However, if
it's an officially supported release (whether it's RHEL, ubuntu, etc.)
we should support it. I believe we were still supporting RHEL3 for a
while, though we can remove that now if there are hooks in the code to
support it still.
Afterall this patch is against a development version of cobbler. The
stable releases (2.0.x) would still be available for the few
installing cobbler on RHEL4. Any thoughts on this?
RHEL4 is not EOL yet, therefore I do not want to quit supporting it in
HEAD. About 50% of the systems we have in cobbler are RHEL4, though we
have quit trying to build new ones.
Btw, the sub_process.py removal was suggested 5 months ago in:
https://fedorahosted.org/cobbler/ticket/632
The ticket is still under review.
That ticket should either be closed or put on hold, since we will not
be acting on it for at least 9 months.
9:25 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, James Cammarata <jimi(a)sngx.net> wrote:
As far as I know, there is no official policy on this. However, if
it's an officially supported release (whether it's RHEL, ubuntu, etc.)
we should support it. I believe we were still supporting RHEL3 for a
while, though we can remove that now if there are hooks in the code to
support it still.
Well, you just provided us with a policy...
RHEL4 is not EOL yet, therefore I do not want to quit supporting it
in
HEAD. About 50% of the systems we have in cobbler are RHEL4, though we
have quit trying to build new ones.
There's nothing stopping you from provisioning RHEL4 with or without
my patch. Again, I find it hard to believe that people would do a
major version upgrade of cobbler on an almost EOL version of RHEL. I
guess that's what the stable branch should be all about.
That ticket should either be closed or put on hold, since we will
not
be acting on it for at least 9 months.
Set to closed/wontfix.
Grtz,
Jörgen Maas
9:35 a.m.
On 6/20/2011 10:25 AM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, James Cammarata<jimi(a)sngx.net>
wrote:
> As far as I know, there is no official policy on this. However, if
> it's an officially supported release (whether it's RHEL, ubuntu, etc.)
> we should support it. I believe we were still supporting RHEL3 for a
> while, though we can remove that now if there are hooks in the code to
> support it still.
Well, you just provided us with a policy...
I think maybe we'd need a better definition of officially supported and
a limit on which distributions it includes to make this a policy. What
if someone were to add support for some small Linux distro that is
forever stuck in the past?
-spp
6 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Stephen Potter <spp(a)unixsa.net> wrote:
On 6/20/2011 10:25 AM, Jörgen Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, James Cammarata<jimi(a)sngx.net> wrote:
>> As far as I know, there is no official policy on this. However, if
>> it's an officially supported release (whether it's RHEL, ubuntu, etc.)
>> we should support it. I believe we were still supporting RHEL3 for a
>> while, though we can remove that now if there are hooks in the code to
>> support it still.
> Well, you just provided us with a policy...
I think maybe we'd need a better definition of officially supported and
a limit on which distributions it includes to make this a policy. What
if someone were to add support for some small Linux distro that is
forever stuck in the past?
-spp
By "officially supported", I mean that if we support a distro all
current versions that are supported by the distributor should be
supported. For example, Fedora supports the current and previous
versions, so we should have official support for Fedora 15 and 14. For
distros that offer extended support like RHEL, we should support those
as long as Red Hat does, meaning we still support RHEL3.
Since things don't change that much in older code bases, we can make a
judgment call as to whether or not we'll support recently retired
distros - for example would it be that difficult for us to fix a
problem with Fedora 13 imports? Since fedora has such a high refresh
rate, it probably wouldn't take much for us to support slightly out of
date versions. RHEL is another beast, considering it has such a long
lifespan.
12:48 a.m.
On 2011-06-20 7:25, Jörgen Maas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, James Cammarata<jimi(a)sngx.net>
wrote:
> As far as I know, there is no official policy on this. However, if
> it's an officially supported release (whether it's RHEL, ubuntu, etc.)
> we should support it. I believe we were still supporting RHEL3 for a
> while, though we can remove that now if there are hooks in the code to
> support it still.
Well, you just provided us with a policy...
Cobbler's original compatibility policy was to have all code support
RHEL 4 (with Python 2.3). Shortly after extended support for RHEL 2.1
was announced in 2009, the replace-self code path gained support for
Python as far back as version 1.5 so all systems managed by Satellite
Server could be upgraded in place.
The current code may or may not still reflect those goals. Either way,
Cobbler's code and compatibility goals can change. But given those bits
of history, dropping support for RHEL 4 on the server sounds reasonable.
The client-side code, however, should strive to remain compatible with
as many releases as possible for, at a minimum, its replace-self
functionality. Note that RHEL 3 (with Python 2.2) has 28 months of
extended support left.
1:33 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Cobbler's original compatibility policy was to have all code support
RHEL 4 (with Python 2.3). Shortly after extended support for RHEL 2.1
was announced in 2009, the replace-self code path gained support for
Python as far back as version 1.5 so all systems managed by Satellite
Server could be upgraded in place.
The current code may or may not still reflect those goals. Either way,
Cobbler's code and compatibility goals can change. But given those bits
of history, dropping support for RHEL 4 on the server sounds reasonable.
The client-side code, however, should strive to remain compatible with
as many releases as possible for, at a minimum, its replace-self
functionality. Note that RHEL 3 (with Python 2.2) has 28 months of
extended support left.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I now see i was a bit too ambitious ;)
I will make the necessary modifications in my tree and repost it here.
It would be nice if this kind of stuff would be posted on the
DeveloperDocs wiki.
I'm willing to do it, but i'm not sure a consensus has been reached ;)
Grtz,
Jörgen Maas
4:08 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Jörgen Maas <jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Cobbler's original compatibility policy was to have all code support
> RHEL 4 (with Python 2.3). Shortly after extended support for RHEL 2.1
> was announced in 2009, the replace-self code path gained support for
> Python as far back as version 1.5 so all systems managed by Satellite
> Server could be upgraded in place.
>
> The current code may or may not still reflect those goals. Either way,
> Cobbler's code and compatibility goals can change. But given those bits
> of history, dropping support for RHEL 4 on the server sounds reasonable.
> The client-side code, however, should strive to remain compatible with
> as many releases as possible for, at a minimum, its replace-self
> functionality. Note that RHEL 3 (with Python 2.2) has 28 months of
> extended support left.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I now see i was a bit too ambitious ;)
I will make the necessary modifications in my tree and repost it here.
FIX:
https://github.com/jmaas/cobbler/commit/6a2e25f3ff9bc6e96fed5b92e7f42eb7a...
12:55 p.m.
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:03:04 +0200, Jörgen Maas <jorgen.maas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This patch removes the sub_process.py module which was included in the
cobbler distribution.
Also removed all references to it and changed the spec file and bumped
the python version to >= 2.4
https://github.com/jmaas/cobbler/commit/c8cfd499e5a7c408f2008a9493a63b343...
I think I'd like to hold off on this till after the el4 EOL. Once that
happens I hope to clean up a lot of compatibility code.
--
Scott Henson
Red Hat CIS Operator
WVU Alum BSAE/BSME
4719
days inactive
4727
days old
cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Garrett Holmstrom -
James Cammarata -
Jörgen Maas -
Scott Henson -
Stephen Potter