rel-eng January 2019

rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
236 discussions

[releng] Issue #7337: Emit fedmsg when candidate composes are synced to stage
by Adam Williamson 10 Sep '19

10 Sep '19

adamwill reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` Candidate composes (as opposed to nightly composes) for Branched are synced to https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/ after they're built. This is supposed to be the preferred download location for them (rather than kojipkgs). However, there is currently no fedmsg emitted when this happens, so automated systems have no good way to know when a candidate compose has been synced and is available from stage/. It would be good if there was a fedmsg for this (probably a `compose` one). @puiterwijk `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7337

3 4

[releng] Issue #7588: F29 system wide change: Deprecate YUM 3 - request for review
by Daniel Mach 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

dmach reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` I'd like to request review of F29 system wide change: Deprecate YUM 3 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_YUM_3 `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7588

9 15

[releng] Issue #8086: Fedora 30 Mass Rebuild
by Mohan Boddu 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

mohanboddu reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue Changes that require mass rebuild for F30 are: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8023 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7907 `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8086

3 4

[releng] Issue #7909: Consider enabling nosync
by Mikolaj Izdebski 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

mizdebsk reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` Please consider turning on [nosync setting in mock](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/wiki/Feature-nosync) on Koji builders. This was brought up in [Removal of GCC from the buildroot](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedora… thread on devel mailing list in July. Nosync aims to improve performance of dnf phase in mock. It achieves this by disabling fsync calls. Fsync calls are not ignored during rpmbuild phase. For more information see upstream documentation linked above. I temporarily enabled nosync in staging Koji to estimate its effect on build performance. Results will be posted below in separate comments. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7909

6 13

[releng] Issue #7575: Impact check for Fedora 29 change: .plt.got Isolation
by Florian Weimer 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

fweimer reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/.plt.got_Isolation Ideally requires mass rebuild. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7575

5 7

[releng] Issue #7403: Consider no longer producing the Workstation repo tree in composes
by Neal Gompa 05 Sep '19

05 Sep '19

ngompa reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` Recently, we stopped producing [the Cloud repo tree](https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/577) as part of composes to speed things up and reduce the number of useless deliverables. I suggest we also stop producing the Workstation repo tree for composes, as we don't use it or need it. Today, for the Workstation Edition, we produce two main artifacts: the live ISO and the branded netinstall ISO. As far as I'm aware, the branded net install ISO differs from the main Fedora netinstall ISO only in branding and defaults through the anaconda productimg embedded within. It uses the `Everything` repo tree like the regular netinstall ISO, and is functionally similar to the regular netinstall ISO. Since the Workstation netinstall doesn't need it, and we don't produce a Workstation install DVD ISO, I do not see a reason to keep producing the Workstation repo tree. Not producing the tree would help reduce the compose time significantly, too. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7403

12 46

[releng] Issue #7445: [RFE][PATCH] make $releasever return "rawhide" on Rawhide
by Kamil Páral 03 Sep '19

03 Sep '19

kparal reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` **Background** If we want to have a more reliable and stable Rawhide, we need to make it easier to test and automate. That means eliminating the differences between Rawhide and stable releases and reducing the necessary manual maintenance steps as much as possible. You can read more about related issues in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7398 and https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/267. **Problem** Currently dnf variable `$releasever` returns a number (29) on Rawhide, but all the repos are stored in `rawhide/` directory, not `29/` (as with stable releases). There are good reasons for this, but it has consequences. It forces the official fedora repos to be split between `fedora-repos` and `fedora-repos-rawhide` (because you can't rely on a variable and have to hardcode "rawhide" in the repo path) and breaks copr and any other third-party repos. Basically for all repos, you need to have two separate versions - rawhide and non-rawhide - and always correctly detect and install the right one. I'd like to propose improvements in this area and discuss it with you in this ticket. **Proposed solution 1** Here's a trivial patch for `fedora-release`: ``` diff --git a/fedora-release.spec b/fedora-release.spec index ecca47f..b4b66f2 100644 --- a/fedora-release.spec +++ b/fedora-release.spec @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ %define release_name Rawhide %define dist_version 29 %define bug_version rawhide +%define releasever rawhide # All changes need to be submitted as pull requests in pagure # The package can only be built by a very small number of people @@ -19,6 +20,7 @@ Obsoletes: redhat-release Provides: redhat-release Provides: system-release Provides: system-release(%{version}) +Provides: system-release(releasever) = %{releasever} # Kill off the fedora-release-nonproduct package Provides: fedora-release-nonproduct = %{version} ``` This adds provision `system-release(releasever) = rawhide` to the `master` branch of `fedora-release`. Therefore, this provision will only be present for Rawhide version of that package. It uses DNF's [detect_releasever()](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/blob/65… logic to populate `$releasever` with `rawhide` string (the new provides) instead of `29` (the version of the package). (Note: This is currently broken in DNF due to a [bug](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568366), but it will be fixed in the next DNF release). The outcome is that all repos can now use `$releasever` in URLs, because it will get replaced by `rawhide` and therefore reach the correct destination. That means you can use the same repo file as in a stable release for COPR or other third-party repo and it will work fine. If the user wants to switch to Branched after branching has happened, they'd run e.g.: ``` sudo dnf distrosync fedora-release\* --releasever=28 ``` **Proposed solution 2** This is a similar approach to the first solution, but creates a `fedora-release-rawhide` subpackage: ``` diff --git a/fedora-release.spec b/fedora-release.spec index ecca47f..74637f1 100644 --- a/fedora-release.spec +++ b/fedora-release.spec @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ %define release_name Rawhide %define dist_version 29 %define bug_version rawhide +%define releasever rawhide # All changes need to be submitted as pull requests in pagure # The package can only be built by a very small number of people @@ -33,6 +34,15 @@ BuildArch: noarch %description Fedora release files such as various /etc/ files that define the release. +%package rawhide +Summary: Fedora release files for Rawhide +Provides: system-release(releasever) = %{releasever} +Requires: fedora-release = %{version}-%{release} + +%description rawhide +This identifies the system as Rawhide for the package manager, causing Rawhide +repositories to be used. + %package atomichost Summary: Base package for Fedora Atomic-specific default configurations Provides: system-release-atomichost @@ -315,6 +325,9 @@ glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : %{_prefix}/lib/systemd/system-preset/99-default-disable.preset +%files rawhide + + %files atomichost %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc} %license LICENSE ``` The difference here is that you can install/uninstall `fedora-release-rawhide` any time at will, which marks/unmarks your system to be following the Rawhide stream. The benefit is that you can switch your system from Rawhide to Branched before the branching actually happens, and your system automatically picks up the right repos after branching (which is awesome, especially for our automation needs). The downside is that both `rawhide/` and `29/` repo URLs/paths need to be present and working during the whole life cycle of Rawhide, so that you can switch any time. And this doesn't apply just to official Fedora repos, but ideally also to COPR and other third-party repos. COPR devs [wanted to avoid](https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/267) duplicated content or maintaining symlinks, but I guess they could be convinced. But other third-party repos might not follow this approach and the whole concept might be confusing for them (however, a good question is how many of those repos actually work on Rawhide already). So to summarize, this is how you'd switch your system to Rawhide: ``` # use dnf system-upgrade to upgrade to Rawhide sudo dnf install fedora-release-rawhide ``` And switching from Rawhide to Branched: ``` sudo dnf remove fedora-release-rawhide sudo dnf distrosync # if branching already happened ``` Fresh Rawhide installation would receive `fedora-release-rawhide` by default, of course. Overall, this adds more user control at the expense of more infra work. Not sure if this is worth it or not. **Proposed solution 3** For the sake of completeness, I'll mention another approach how to achieve the goal without using new RPM provides. `$releasever` value can be overridden by a file like this: ``` $ cat /etc/dnf/vars/releasever rawhide ``` If this file was owned by `fedora-release-rawhide`, it would be very similar to solution 2 - you can switch the Branched/Rawhide stream any time. The implementation detail here is whether to mark this file as a config file or not, so that it doesn't e.g. stay around even after you remove `fedora-release-rawhide`, or that it doesn't e.g. conflict with an already existing file at that location (if the user wanted to override `$releasever` already for any reason). Solution 2 seems a bit cleaner here because you don't need to bother with corner cases involving config file management. **Possible future steps for Fedora Releng** Once `$releasever` returns `rawhide` on Rawhide, you can (if you wish) drop `fedora-repos-rawhide` and use the same `fedora-repos` package everywhere (ideally also create empty `updates/rawhide` and `updates/testing/rawhide` repos as requested in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7398) Some repo properties will still probably have different values (like `metadata_expire`), but that can be easily adjusted in the spec file and you can have the same source tarball for all releases, if you wish. This would make the environment even more consistent for users (the repo names would be named the same in all releases). **Known pitfalls** There's one known problem with any of the approaches suggested above, called PackageKit. PackageKit doesn't use DNF to figure out `$releasever`, nor it uses the same logic. Instead, it parses `VERSION_ID` from `/etc/os-release` ([source1](https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/blob/2f1c4b820b056efc989be0f…, [source2](https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/blob/1e7858b1b67120b377adcb3…) So any changes described here will not apply to PackageKit and it will still return a number (e.g. 29) as `$releasever`. That is something that of course needs to get resolved as well, but before investing time into fixing it, I first wanted to know whether this whole idea gets approved or not. There are several approaches how to fix this in PackageKit, either retrieving `$releasever` from libdnf (when on Fedora), or implementing the same detection logic as in DNF, or perhaps adding `VERSION_CODENAME=Rawhide` to `/etc/os-release` and then special-casing this in PackageKit (however, this would break if solution 2 or 3 is used and the user can switch between streams arbitrarily). However, I'd like to first talk about the concept itself, and only after that start hammering out the implementation details with PackageKit developers. **Discussion** Please tell me what do you think about the proposed changes. Does it make sense? Have I overlooked something important? Are there better ways to solve the aforementioned issues? Thank you. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7445

10 46

[releng] Issue #7718: The FTBFS cleanup policy is not happening
by Miro Hrončok 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

churchyard reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` The https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_build_from_source policy says: > If a FTBFS bug remains in NEW state, a weekly reminder will be sent. This never happened. (Opened also as https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1973 - feel free to close the less appropriate one.) `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7718

6 45

[releng] Issue #7606: F29 system wide change: uEFI for ARMv7
by Peter Robinson 17 Jul '19

17 Jul '19

pbrobinson reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/uEFIforARMv7 Change for uEFI on ARMv7. There will need to be a new version of oz deployed on aarch64 builder userd for building images to enable us to build ARMv7 images on those devices. I will co-ordinate with infra/rel-eng to deploy and test this on stage/prod infrastructure, and once deployed and tested will provide a PR with the pungi config changes (minor) to enable this in the nightly composes. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7606

3 5

[releng] Issue #7996: Taking over Hoard
by Emery D Berger 17 Jul '19

17 Jul '19

emeryberger reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Hoard has been orphaned; I am claiming it and taking it over. (I am the author and maintainer of Hoard.) `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7996

5 16

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng January 2019