[releng] Issue #7445: [RFE][PATCH] make $releasever return "rawhide" on
Rawhide
by Kamil Páral
kparal reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
**Background**
If we want to have a more reliable and stable Rawhide, we need to make it easier to test and automate. That means eliminating the differences between Rawhide and stable releases and reducing the necessary manual maintenance steps as much as possible. You can read more about related issues in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7398 and https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/267.
**Problem**
Currently dnf variable `$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/... 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 `$releasever`, nor it uses the same logic. Instead, it parses `VERSION_ID` from `/etc/os-release` ([source1](https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/blob/2f1c4b820b056efc989be..., [source2](https://github.com/hughsie/PackageKit/blob/1e7858b1b67120b377adc...). So any changes described here will not apply to PackageKit and it will still return a number (e.g. 29) as `$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
3 years, 6 months
[releng] Issue #8330: no f30 silverblue updates: ostree composes started by
bodhi are failing
by Dusty Mabe
dustymabe reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
The ostree composes seem to be failing with an error:
```
2019-03-12 16:00:50 [ERROR ] [FAIL] Ostree (variant Everything, arch x86_64) failed, but going on anyway.
2019-03-12 16:00:50 [ERROR ] 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xc2 in position 6271: ordinal not in range(128)
```
An example failed composes issue for this: https://pagure.io/dusty/failed-composes/issue/1642
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
ASAP so people on Fedora SB 30 can get updates
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
F30 EOL
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
Users of Fedora SB move to something else (possibly not Fedora).
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8330
3 years, 7 months
[releng] Issue #8294: coreos-pool and coreos-release koji tags request for
FCOS
by Sinny Kumari
sinnykumari reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
** Describe the issue**
Fedora CoreOS will have [various streams](https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/blob/master/stre.... All streams will use packages which are built in Fedora koji. Mechanical streams will use packages available in Fedora repos from tags f$(release), f$(release)-updates, f$(release)-updates-testing. Development and production streams will get built from packages available under koji tag `coreos-pool`. Packages which make it to production will also get tagged to `coreos-release` tag.
These tags will ensure that (1) packages are not automatically garbage collected (2) stream builds are reproducible (up to the GC retention policy we agree upon), and (3) packages are added to the pool (and thus into the production streams) in a controlled manner.
To build FCOS for different streams we need:
- coreos-pool and coreos-release koji tags created (include arches aarch64, ppc64le, x86_64)
- Permission to add packages to requested tags (ACLs for bgilbert, dustymabe, jlebon and sinnykumari, until we have bot setup done)
- Tag builds needs to be signed
- Generate dist repo for requested tags with option `--non-latest` to koji dist-repo (to perform build with desired NVRA)
**Question**
As we have streams like next-devel and testing-devel, packages will be from multiple Fedora releases in coreos-pool and coreos-release tags. Since we will be using signed packages, does koji dist-repo allows to specify multiple keys for generating dist repos? This question is because, in [infra ansible tag2distrepo](https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/t..., so far single key has been used.
** When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) **
ASAP
** When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) **
Always needed
** If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? **
we won't be able to build FCOS for different streams
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8294
3 years, 7 months
[releng] Issue #8275: Fedora 31 FTBFS and all Fails to install tracker
bugzillas
by Miro Hrončok
churchyard reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
According to the [new policy about FTBFS and FTI (Fails to install) packages](https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2109), please create the following new tracker bugzillas:
* Fedora 31 Fails to build from source - F31FTBFS
* Fedora 31 Fails to install - F31FailsToInstall
* Fedora 30 Fails to install - F30FailsToInstall
* Fedora 29 Fails to install - F29FailsToInstall
* Fedora 28 Fails to install - F28FailsToInstall
About the aliases: I suggested F31FTI, but @till [had a good point](https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2109#comment-561765) that F30_fails_to_install (or similar) might be easier for others. I ultimately leave that decision to releng, but I guess we usually stick to CamelCase, so I went with F30FailsToInstall
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8275
3 years, 7 months