About JS framework
by Pierre-Yves Chibon
Good Morning Everyone,
Our infrastructure is mostly a python store, meaning almost all our apps are
written in python and most using wsgi.
However in python we are using a number of framework:
* flask for most
* pyramid for some of the biggest (bodhi, FAS3)
* Django (askbot, Hyperkitty)
* TurboGears2 (fedora-packages)
* aiohttp (python3, async app: mdapi)
While this makes sometime things difficult, these are fairly standard framework
and most of our developers are able to help on all.
However, as I see us starting to look at JS for some of our apps (fedora-hubs,
wartaa...), I wonder if we could start the discussion early about the different
framework and eventually see if we can unify around one.
This would also allow those of us not familiar with any JS framework to look at
the recommended one instead of picking one up semi-randomly.
So has anyone experience with one or more JS framework? Do you have one that
would you recommend? Why?
Thanks for your inputs,
Pierre
5 months
The packages app has a short runway
by Randy Barlow
Greetings!
The packages app is running on Fedora 30, and its dependencies are not
available in Fedora 31+ as I understand it.
This means it has about 7 months before we need to do something about
it, or shut it off.
Do we know if it can run on RHEL 7?
2 years, 11 months
Re: Issue with Fedora GeoIP service
by Kevin Fenzi
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 04:49:15PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 06/12/2019 16:41, Martin Kolman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 08:38 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> >
> > > I also installed the Fedora 31 GeoIP packages and ran the geoipupdate,
> > > and that DB has the correct info.
> >
> > IIRC the infra team mentioned some issues with the new geoip database
> > being incompatible with how the service is currently implemented,
> > resulting in being stuck with an outdated database until this is resolved.
>
> Sounds like it maybe doesn't have support for GeoLite2 and is using the
> old MaxMind GeoLite Legacy databases which haven't been updated since
> the start of this year.
Yes, that is exactly the case.
We recently looked at this to see if we could retire the service, but it
looks like it's still needed, so we need to figure out how to get cycles
to update it.
If someone wants to work on this, let us know!
kevin
2 years, 11 months
Update geoip-city
by Adrian Reber
Attached is the patch to take the upstream update of geoip-city to
Fedora infrastructure.
I would like to try this first in staging and need some help to run the
corresponding playbook to see if it works in our environment.
Adrian
2 years, 11 months
Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)
by Neal Gompa
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:13 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Le dimanche 29 mars 2020 à 23:47 -0400, Neal Gompa a écrit :
> >
> > > As a General User
> > > I want to access repos fully over https
> > > For environments where SSH is blocked
> >
> > I would be really curious if the Red Hat Infrastructure Security guys
> > have changed their opinion on this after four years of blocking the
> > development of this feature in Pagure. The two major reasons we don't
> > have this in Pagure are:
>
> Neal,
>
> Security is the usual excuse not to implement stuff. That does not work
> when competing with others that did their homework. As you noted
> yourself ssh accesss is not blameless either.
>
> Gitlab and Github work in https mode. Pagure does not. End of story.
>
> Expecting others to hole their security with corkscrew because of the
> ssh holy cow was never going to impress any third party.
>
You don't have to tell me, I already know. It was intentionally not
implemented. And even with all that, we *do* have HTTPS through SSO on
src.fp.o. We just don't have it on pagure.io. Don't expect it to be
available with the move to GitLab. GitLab admins have a toggle they
can use to disable HTTPS pushing for policy reasons, and I will
strongly bet on it being flipped so that HTTPS pushing will not be
available in our GitLab.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
2 years, 11 months
The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)
by Neal Gompa
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 4:12 PM Aoife Moloney <amoloney(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> ### Other Updates
>
> #### GitForge Decision
> * After evaluating over 300 user stories from multiple stakeholders we
> have aligned on a decision for the Gitforge that CPE will operate for
> the coming years. We are opting for Gitlab for our dist git and
> project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community
> assistance.
> * Check out our GitForge decision on the Fedora Community blog
> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/
> * And at the CentOS blog page
> https://blog.centos.org/2020/03/git-forge-decision/
> * Keep an eye out for mails in the coming months to the devel lists as
> we plan transitions and next steps with GitLab
> * We would like to express our sincere thank you to all who
> contributed requirements to us!
>
>
I'm going to start with the delivery of this decision sucked. If I
hadn't been alerted to look for this by other folks due to my advocacy
and community building work around Pagure, I would *not* have known
that the decision had been made. This is in contrast to the *big deal*
that was made about starting this "decision process". I don't know if
there were folks counting on nobody noticing this or not, but this is
not a good way to deliver effectively a major decision like this. I
also absolutely *refuse* to deal with the fact that this thread was
split into three mailing lists. All three are connected to this
thread, and I will take responses from all of them and follow them
accordingly.
Enough about that, let's talk about the actual decision.
So, you're going with GitLab. It's interesting to note that the
particulars about going to GitLab are not even figured out. It is
curious that "SAAS" is mentioned very prominently. That made me a bit
more curious, so I looked at the "final" feature requirements.
Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed.
To put it bluntly, there are *zero* free and open source solutions
that satisfy your needs. From this, I understood why you said GitLab
and SaaS. You want GitLab Ultimate, the proprietary solution that
includes several extra features on top to satisfy the following
requirements (quoted from your blog post):
> * There is a need for CentOS Stream to integrate with a kernel workflow that is an automated bot driven merging solution (merge trains). This allows for richer CI capabilities and minimizes the need for human interaction
> * Gitlab allows for project planning capability which could make multiple trackers such as Taiga redundant, allowing for the planning and tracking to reside within the repo. It would enrich the current ticket based solution that Pagure has evolved into for some groups
These two requirements *alone* automatically force us to GitLab
Enterprise Ultimate Edition, as there is no other solution available
that satisfies those requirements in one product. Merge trains *is* a
feature of Pagure when combined with Zuul, but GitLab's project
planning features do not exist in *any* FOSS product, including GitLab
CE (or GitLab Core as they call it now).
There are mentions of other work that CPE team wants to do to better
improve Fedora. Okay, sure. I even agree with some of them. And the
time bomb that is FAS is definitely worth the attention (note that I
am somewhat involved in the development of the Fedora AAA solution and
am also working on trying to develop a community around it so it
doesn't implode like virtually every other project under the Fedora
umbrella, more on *that* a bit later).
However, nobody has given me or anyone else in the Pagure community
(which yes, is more than Pierre-Yves, thank you very much!) any
concrete details of deficiencies they'd see that is not satisfiable by
the community within a year before now. I've spent a little over a day
analyzing the user stories and thinking about the gaps between Pagure
and what the community wants, and I want to give some perspective here
for some of these. I'm happy to accept refutations and other details
to further enhance the color of these stories, of course.
> 5
> As a RH Developer
> I need the ability to privately comment on a PR
> so that confidential information does not leak outside Red Hat
Ignoring the mountainous levels of terrible problems that such a
feature causes us *now* in the Red Hat Bugzilla, Pierre-Yves and I
were literally discussing this with a Mageian who was interested in
this feature for Pagure weeks ago. We had identified the feature as
not difficult to implement but also simultaneously nobody really
*wanted it now*. It surprises me that this is something that should be
considered an important feature to preserve. It's actually a very
*rare* feature, and does not exist in any forge today, presumably
because it's actually a horrifically bad idea and antithetical to open
development. GitLab itself lacks this feature, in all variants.
> 16
> As a general user
> I want to be able to create a bot/service account
> That integrates with the gitforge in the same way as a human does
This is a nice ask, but it's not a reasonably easy one to implement
with our current system. This is a problem I've struggled with at
$DAYJOB with GitLab as well, and frankly, if you have account
integration with a single-sign-on system (which virtually all
large-scale Git forge instances do), you can't really easily have this
without causing major problems. Not the least of which is how you
resolve account namespace collisions. There are also problems with
maintaining and auditing, too. But it's certainly something I'd like
to see in any forge (note that none implement this today either).
> 29
> As a General User
> I want to access repos fully over https
> For environments where SSH is blocked
I would be really curious if the Red Hat Infrastructure Security guys
have changed their opinion on this after four years of blocking the
development of this feature in Pagure. The two major reasons we don't
have this in Pagure are:
* There is a very strong push to not provide a way to bypass the SSO
(ignoring the fact that SSH keys are effectively a bypass, but most
security people are two-faced about this anyway)
* There is a very strong push to not provide LDAP integration so that
the required HTTP(S) Git proxy server would not be able to be
implemented.
Note that for GitLab, unless you configure it to have access to LDAP
or set up personal access tokens, you cannot use HTTP(S) push at all.
Once again, this totally bypasses SSO. If the same rules that applied
to Pagure apply to GitLab, nobody is getting this feature anytime soon
with GitLab. If the attitude toward this feature has finally changed,
I'd love to know.
Also, for those who don't know, Fedora's Dist-Git supports HTTPS push,
and has for almost a year:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/HTTPS-commits
This is done by *forcing* an SSO flow for *fedpkg* itself and
leveraging it as a credential and auth point. Unfortunately, this is
not a general purpose feature because there's not an easy way to do
that, so it's unavailable on pagure.io at this time. This mechanism
for HTTP push is *not* possible with GitLab, and would be quite
difficult to implement due to the crazy architecture internally. But
if more *normal* HTTPS is acceptable (like through auth tokens or LDAP
auth), then this is something that could be relatively quickly added
to Pagure (there was some old code that never got merged two years
ago, I still have it archived somewhere...).
> 31
> As a General User
> I can request access rights to a repository
> So that I can contribute in a low friction manner
I honestly don't know entirely what this means. Are we talking about
having partial commit access (commit access to only some branches)? If
so, there's a PR out for implementing this in Pagure under review:
https://pagure.io/pagure/pull-request/4786
> 34
> As a General User
> I want a mobile native app
> To allow me contribute while away from my desk
I don't have words for this... You folks know that only GitHub.com has
an official mobile app, right? And the experience is not great...
🤦♂️
> 42
> As a General User
> want a GUI to interface with the system as well as a CLI
> so new users have an easier way to interface with it
I'd like to point out that most popular GUIs for Git stuff are not
forge specific and do not even do much for forge integration. But
sure...?
> 44
> As a General User
> I want a temporary file (gist)
> So that I can share code easily
There seems to be a misunderstanding here... Gists are not temporary.
They're lightweight *permanent* Git repos (in GitHub). GitLab stores
them (called Snippets) as permanent things in the database (not a Git
repo). Are you trying to conflate pastebin use-cases here? That's
probably a very bad idea...
> 46
> As a General User
> I want to be notified of CVEs in my code
> so that I can stay on top of critical vulnerabilities
There are *zero* FOSS solutions for this in the forge space. This
feature does *not* exist below GitLab Ultimate (the former Gemnasium
service was integrated into it).
> 47
> As a General User
> I want integrated keyword support
> to allow me automate a lot of my actions such as a rebuild / retest
This is not a forge feature, this is a CI service feature. And note,
GitLab CI does not support this.
> 49
> As a General User
> I want to gain analytics and insights from my code
> so that I can have historic context to make decisions moving forward
GitLab Enterprise features...
> 51
> As a General User
> I would like to track my work in an Agile manner
> allowing me centralise all my planning in my forge and gain insights into how I am working.
GitLab Enterprise features, as mentioned earlier.
> 56
> As a General User
> I want registry integration
> so that I can store dependencies
No, you don't. You *really* don't want this. Are you *sure* you know
what you're asking for? You're suggesting three things here:
* OSS solutions for this (including Fedora's own package/container
infrastructure and hosted quay.io) are not good enough
* You are ready to have even more arbitrary data stored in the Git
system that may not follow our legal compliance
* You are willing to pay the cost of having even more data stored
> 57
> As a General User
> I want the ability to have a private branch
> So that I do not need to leave the code tree I am already in
Just so everyone is *crystal clear*: you literally cannot do this. Git
does not have a concept of private branches or private refs within a
repository. You can have private forks, of course. And Pagure supports
those just fine, just like GitLab and GitHub do.
(also note, we *intentionally* do not have private repos turned on...
if we want this, we could just flip a switch...)
> 62
> As a General User
> I want automerges when specific acceptance criteria are met
> So that I do not need manual intervention
So... Mergify then? This is not *currently* a GitLab feature, and
Mergify does not support GitLab, last I checked. Only GitHub.com. It's
been on my bucket for a while to look at extending Mergify to support
Pagure for this, as it's a really nice feature...
I want to take a moment to reflect on something that has been on my
mind for a while now: Fedora has not done a good job being an umbrella
organization. As an organization, we have done a huge disservice to
all Fedora-affiliated projects by not allocating any community
development effort or marketing effort. I know that Matthew Miller
feels Fedora should evolve to being an operating systems factory[1]
and to some extent that isn't a bad thought. But the Fedora Project
was always intended to be more than just the Fedora Linux
distribution. It has always been intended to be a home for Free and
Open Source innovation. In a Hacker News thread last year[2], I had
reflected on how proud I have been to be part of Fedora because we, as
a community, weren't willing to just give up like so many others do.
When FOSS solutions were inadequate, we built better ones. We've
invented things that didn't exist before, and jump-started
conversations about concepts that people didn't think of before. But
there has been a bit of a dark side to this for Fedora. We've rarely
given our projects an opportunity to grow beyond us. Off the top of my
head, the *only* project that technically *started* in Fedora and
became successful was Ansible. And if I'm being totally brutally
honest, it was only successful because the engineers who were
passionate about it had to quit Red Hat and create AnsibleWorks to
push it to success. It was successful *despite* Fedora. Maybe soon
we'll be able to add HyperKitty and Postorius to that, as I've been
seeing deployments of that come online over the past few months. It's
taken a while, but HyperKitty is finally taking off. There was one
person I talked to who told me that HyperKitty made mailing lists
enjoyable and she didn't know the project came from Fedora originally.
Again, seeing success despite Fedora.
When I talk to folks in other communities and show them some of the
infrastructure projects we've developed as part of trying to build
communities around them, I've literally had people tell me that they
wish they had known we made them before, because it solved all their
problems they were struggling with. That's both amazingly uplifting
and terribly depressing at the same time. I'm not even putting in a
lot of effort and we get so much more out of it. It didn't take a lot
for me to get openSUSE interested in our new AAA solution and
contributing. That tells me that we're just not trying. And really,
that's obvious. Even a simple comparison of the Fedora and openSUSE
project landing pages show that Fedora gives zero attention to the
projects that exist under its umbrella. When you look at the openSUSE
landing page, the distribution and major software projects under the
umbrella are all broadcasted there. It makes it so much easier to
discover and generate interest. I'm not saying I love every aspect of
the openSUSE marketing. Far from it! But this is one thing they do
right that we do terribly wrong. And then we sit back and wonder why
our projects fail to generate interest beyond a few folks in Fedora
itself. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is something we need to
fix for *all* our projects: present and future.
In the end, I think the biggest disappointment of this process is that
it feels like it demonstrates that Fedora leadership and management is
not as committed to its mission and vision[3] as I hoped it was. I
realize that I should not be surprised by this. Most of the leadership
and management are no longer the idealistic people they were when they
first became involved. And it's even harder to be idealistic when it's
so easy to give in when you work for "open source company" that
increasingly uses proprietary software to manage its workflow (to be
fair, I think at this point virtually all major companies do this,
which more or less demonstrates the amoral nature of these entities).
Maybe I'm just an old remnant of a bygone era, but I personally remain
somewhat idealistic, even as I have progressed over the years. I also
remain hopeful that other members of the community are of similar
mind. And perhaps this is a bit of a fool's hope, but I hope the CPE
team reconsiders their decision, or at least would be willing to
provide more context on the gaps they felt pushed them over so they
could be prioritized for Pagure development (and maybe we can develop
them fast enough so that we don't have to switch...).
I think this is also an important indicator that Open Source has *not*
won and it is *not* the default. People who keep saying otherwise need
to seriously look hard at the landscape and realize that we have a
long way to go before Open Source becomes the true default. It
behooves us to become cognizant of this and push for freedom whenever
and wherever we can.
As for me? Well, I will do my best to try to help develop the Pagure
community. I'm still committed to assisting the Free Software
Foundation and other communities with using and contributing to
Pagure. I hope others within the community will consider helping too.
Pagure provides unique features that do not exist in any other forge,
in large part because it is driven by an ideal that open data and
freedom should be core tenants of software project management. And
hey, I hear whispers of new Pagure instances being set up all the
time! We're doing something right here, and it'd be a shame to
squander it.
Heh, the irony is that I started using and contributing to Pagure
*because* I was burned by GitLab...
[1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19356307
[3]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
2 years, 11 months
[PATCH] s3-mirror: sync s3-sync-path script with ideas from s3.sh
by Pavel Raiskup
1. sync everything except for repomd.xml
2. then sync repomd.xml files only, and invalidate caches
3. gently wait a bit to give current downloads a chance
4. delete old metadata, shouldn't be needed
---
roles/s3-mirror/files/s3-sync-path.sh | 99 ++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
diff --git a/roles/s3-mirror/files/s3-sync-path.sh b/roles/s3-mirror/files/s3-sync-path.sh
index 79b4d63eb..5a414e3ad 100644
--- a/roles/s3-mirror/files/s3-sync-path.sh
+++ b/roles/s3-mirror/files/s3-sync-path.sh
@@ -9,58 +9,65 @@ if [[ "$1" == "" ]] || [[ $1 != /pub* ]] || [[ $1 != */ ]]; then
exit 1
fi
+aws_sync=( aws s3 sync --no-follow-symlinks )
+
# first run do not delete anything or copy the repodata.
-CMD1="aws s3 sync \
- --exclude */repodata/* \
- --exclude *.snapshot/* \
- --exclude *source/* \
- --exclude *SRPMS/* \
- --exclude *debug/* \
- --exclude *beta/* \
- --exclude *ppc/* \
- --exclude *ppc64/* \
- --exclude *repoview/* \
- --exclude *Fedora/* \
- --exclude *EFI/* \
- --exclude *core/* \
- --exclude *extras/* \
- --exclude *LiveOS/* \
- --exclude *development/rawhide/* \
- --no-follow-symlinks \
- --only-show-errors \
- "
- #--dryrun \
+exclude=(
+ --exclude "*/repodata/*"
+ --exclude "*.snapshot/*"
+ --exclude "*source/*"
+ --exclude "*SRPMS/*"
+ --exclude "*debug/*"
+ --exclude "*beta/*"
+ --exclude "*ppc/*"
+ --exclude "*ppc64/*"
+ --exclude "*repoview/*"
+ --exclude "*Fedora/*"
+ --exclude "*EFI/*"
+ --exclude "*core/*"
+ --exclude "*extras/*"
+ --exclude "*LiveOS/*"
+ --exclude "*development/rawhide/*"
+ --only-show-errors
+)
-# second we delete old content and also copy the repodata
-CMD2="aws s3 sync \
- --delete \
- --exclude *.snapshot/* \
- --exclude *source/* \
- --exclude *SRPMS/* \
- --exclude *debug/* \
- --exclude *beta/* \
- --exclude *ppc/* \
- --exclude *ppc64/* \
- --exclude *repoview/* \
- --exclude *Fedora/* \
- --exclude *EFI/* \
- --exclude *core/* \
- --exclude *extras/* \
- --exclude *LiveOS/* \
- --exclude *development/rawhide/* \
- --no-follow-symlinks \
- --only-show-errors \
- "
- #--dryrun \
+S3_MIRROR=s3-mirror-us-west-1-02.fedoraproject.org
+DIST_ID=E2KJMDC0QAJDMU
+MAX_CACHE_SEC=60
+DNF_GENTLY_TIMEOUT=120
+
+# First run this command that syncs, but does not delete.
+# It also excludes repomd.xml.
+CMD1=( "${aws_sync[@]}" "${excludes[@]}" --exclude "*/repomd.xml" )
+
+# Next we run this command which syncs repomd.xml files. Include must precede
+# the large set of excludes. Make sure that the 'max-age' isn't too large so
+# we know that we can start removing old data ASAP.
+CMD2=( "${aws_sync[@]}" --exclude "*" --include "*/repomd.xml" "${excludes[@]}"
+ --cache-control "max-age=$MAX_CACHE_SEC" )
+
+# Then we delete old RPMs and old metadata (but after invalidating caches).
+CMD3=( "${aws_sync[@]}" "${excludes[@]}" --delete )
#echo "$CMD /srv$1 s3://s3-mirror-us-west-1-02.fedoraproject.org$1"
echo "Starting $1 sync at $(date)" >> /var/log/s3-mirror/timestamps
-$CMD1 /srv$1 s3://s3-mirror-us-west-1-02.fedoraproject.org$1
-$CMD1 /srv$1/repodata/ s3://s3-mirror-us-west-1-02.fedoraproject.org$1/repodata/
+"${CMD1[@]}" "/srv$1" "s3://$S3_MIRROR$1"
+"${CMD2[@]}" "/srv$1" "s3://$S3_MIRROR$1"
+
# Always do the invalidations because they are quick and prevent issues
# depending on which path is synced.
-for file in $(echo $1/repodata/* ); do
- aws cloudfront create-invalidation --distribution-id E2KJMDC0QAJDMU --paths "$file" > /dev/null
+for file in $(echo $1/repodata/repomd.xml ); do
+ aws cloudfront create-invalidation --distribution-id $DIST_ID --paths "$file" > /dev/null
done
-$CMD2 /srv$1 s3://s3-mirror-us-west-1-02.fedoraproject.org$1
+
+SLEEP=$(( MAX_CACHE_SEC + DNF_GENTLY_TIMEOUT ))
+echo "Ready $1 sync, giving dnf downloads ${SLEEP}s before delete, at $(date)" >> /var/log/s3-mirror/timestamps
+
+# Consider some DNF processes started downloading metadata before we invalidated
+# caches, and started with outdated repomd.xml file. Give it few more seconds
+# so they have chance to download the rest of metadata and RPMs.
+sleep $SLEEP
+
+"${CMD3[@]}" "/srv$1" "s3://$S3_MIRROR$1"
+
echo "Ending $1 sync at $(date)" >> /var/log/s3-mirror/timestamps
--
2.25.1
2 years, 11 months
CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28
by Aoife Moloney
---
title: CPE Weekly status email
tags: CPE Weekly, email
---
# CPE Weekly: 2020-03-06
Background:
The Community Platform Engineering group is the Red Hat team combining
IT and release engineering from Fedora and CentOS. Our goal is to keep
core servers and services running and maintained, build releases, and
other strategic tasks that need more dedicated time than volunteers
can give.
For better communication, we will be giving weekly reports to the
CentOS and Fedora communities about the general tasks and work being
done. Also for better communication between our groups we have
created #redhat-cpe on Freenode IRC! Please feel free to catch us
there, a mail has landed on both the CentOS and Fedora devel lists
with context here.
## Fedora Updates
* Freeze is over!
* New version of pagure (5.9.0) has been released and deployed in
staging and on pagure.io
* Document being worked on about how to onboard new CI systems in
Fedora - this is a work in progress!
https://hackmd.io/5gk_kHFhSR6sKa1huPA-4Q
### Request for Review
* Fedora magazine: Article proposals about Silverblue rebase to F32
https://pagure.io/fedora-magazine-proposals/issue/59
* Packit integration in the-new-hotness
https://github.com/packit-service/packit/issues/689
* KeepassXC flatpak issue https://pagure.io/flatpak-module-tools/issue/6
### Data Centre Move
* Communishift will be unavailable from 2020-04-13 until 2020-05-08
* Check out our detailed move shedule here
https://hackmd.io/R3EkjzVyTG2TYwQvkfzYrA?sync=&type=
* Covid-19 has seen restrictions added to the data centres we are
moving from and to, however we are unaffected as of yet for the move.
* If or when our timelines become affected, we will inform you
immediately of any outages, downtimes, etc a delay could cause.
* Thank you for your understanding at this particularly uncertain and
worrying times.
### AAA Replacement
* We are nearly complete in our phase one development!
* Below are some of the features the team have developed since
beginning the project in mid-Jan
* UI where people register and login
* Add groups function
* Change personal details
* Enroll OPT
* Reset password
* View group owner details
* Use a search engine
* Our next steps in this project is to demo to the team for feedback
and then continue to develop CentOS authentication, more user focused
features, request for more feedback and test, test test!
### CI/CD
* Monitor-gating is now running in production and has already caught a
couple of issues with bodhi (both in stg and in prod)!
* Rpmautospec
* This is in review as a Fedora package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816124
* Work progressing on Koji tagging plugin (post-build), full use
case support for bumping releases
* The team hope to deploy this in staging soon!
### Sustaining Team
* Mbbox
* Some progress on CRD for koji-builder and koji-hub components
has been made this week
* Bodhi 5.2.2 released
* Some issues with celery tasks & rawhide monitoring has been
super useful with this.
* Compose Tracker enhancement
* Tagging issues have been resolved
* Ability to ping maintainers
* Fedora Minimal Compose
* Odcs-backend-releng01 has been provisioned to enable testing
## CentOS Updates
### CentOS
* ppc64le and aarch64, 8 and 8-stream nodes now available in cico for
tenants to checkout. -- Email sent to ci-user list
* New signing for SIGs (through https://cbs.centos.org) live this week!
### CentOS Stream
* Qt5.12 pushed in response to an internal request
* NetworkManager re-imported
### Other Updates
#### GitForge Decision
* After evaluating over 300 user stories from multiple stakeholders we
have aligned on a decision for the Gitforge that CPE will operate for
the coming years. We are opting for Gitlab for our dist git and
project hosting and will continue to run pagure.io with community
assistance.
* Check out our GitForge decision on the Fedora Community blog
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/
* And at the CentOS blog page
https://blog.centos.org/2020/03/git-forge-decision/
* Keep an eye out for mails in the coming months to the devel lists as
we plan transitions and next steps with GitLab
* We would like to express our sincere thank you to all who
contributed requirements to us!
As always, feedback is welcome, and we will continue to look at ways
to improve the delivery and readability of this weekly report.
Have a great weekend!
Aoife
Source: https://hackmd.io/8iV7PilARSG68Tqv8CzKOQ
--
Aoife Moloney
Product Owner
Community Platform Engineering Team
Red Hat EMEA
Communications House
Cork Road
Waterford
2 years, 11 months
Proposing keeping multiple versions of the same package in the
updates repo
by Michel Alexandre Salim
Hi,
We run a diverse fleet of Linux laptops and desktops (at Facebook), and sometimes there are regressions that affect some of our fleet but not others.
To pick the latest example:
- pulseaudio 1.3.99.1 (both -1 and -2) breaks Bluetooth support on a Dell XPS 15: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814556
- but it fixes HDA audio input on ThinkPad T490s and X1 Carbon: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c3e19f5098
We've had similar issues with kernel regressions (e.g. 5.4 kernels had issues with Intel GPUs, and on ThinkPads with Nvidia GPUs).
(Ideally we catch all this before they land -- over the medium term I'm trying to find a way to encourage our users to help test updates)
Would it be possible to keep 2 or 3 versions of the same package in the updates repo, so we can easily keep some of our fleet at a previous version known to work on that particular hardware? And is there a process for proposing this (e.g. file a ticket on Pagure)?
Our workaround right now is to check in the older versions in our internal repo.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
FAS: salimma
work email: michel AT fb DOT com
2 years, 11 months
Pagure for EL8 (EPEL8)
by Neal Gompa
Hey all,
In the interest of helping to modernize the infrastructure Fedora runs
on, I'm working on introducing Pagure into EPEL8. This will hopefully
allow us to upgrade our Pagure instances to use RHEL 8 instead of RHEL
7, and notably, make the transition (mostly) complete for moving all
Python software Fedora runs to Python 3.
I've done an early build locally to determine what's needed to make
this possible. The following report from DNF indicates the missing
packages that need to be added to EPEL 8 before I can introduce Pagure
into EPEL8:
Problem 1: conflicting requests
- nothing provides python3-jenkins needed by pagure-ci-5.8-1.el8.noarch
Problem 2: conflicting requests
- nothing provides gitolite3 needed by pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(binaryornot) needed by
pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(celery) needed by pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(flask-wtf) needed by pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(redis) needed by pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(straight.plugin) needed by
pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(wtforms) needed by pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
- nothing provides python3.6dist(pygit2) >= 0.26.0 needed by
pagure-5.8-1.el8.noarch
Problem 3: conflicting requests
- nothing provides python3-trololio needed by pagure-ev-5.8-1.el8.noarch
One of the reasons I'd like to have this done sooner rather than later
is so that we can drop Python 2 support from Pagure with version 6.0.
I think it's quite reasonable to say that version 6.0 isn't going to
happen until we can get our Pagure servers running on EL8 using Python
3.
So now, I need some help making this happen. I already own trololio,
and I'm going to make that available in EPEL 8 ASAP. Can anyone help
with some of the other dependencies here?
Thanks in advance,
Neal
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
2 years, 11 months
