[releng] Issue #8717: Please create an epel8-playground branch for libdbi
by Stephen J Smoogen
smooge reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
It looks like libdbi was branched for epel8 but not for epel8-playground. This is making the ability to build packages (nagios-plugins etc) in playground not possible
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
2019-09-04?
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
nagios-plugins and similar programs can not be built in the playground.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8717
4 years, 7 months
[releng] Issue #8637: Remove and deprecate pki module
by Alexander Scheel
cipherboy reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
Hi folks. The `pki` module was never officially supported, finished, or really released at all. But it keeps popping up from time to time in `rawhide` and other releases. I just saw it today in `rawhide`. Could I bother someone with magical releng abilities to:
- untag `pki` from rawhide,
- deprecate both the `10.6` and `10.4` branches on the [pki module](https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/pki/branches?branchname=mas...
- Is it possible to untag the `pki` module in older releases as well (`f29`/`f30`)?
The only supported way to acquire Dogtag in Fedora is through the ursine packages.
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
Whenever is convenient. It'd be nice before F31 gets too far into the release cycle.
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
Always useful. :-)
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
Some people might get confused, but this is unlikely because we've not really seen bug reports from the old, modular packages.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8637
4 years, 7 months
[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
4 years, 7 months
[releng] Issue #8712: Consider changing freeze time
by Kevin Fenzi
kevin reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
Right now we do freeze actions at 00:00UTC of the day they are listed on the schedule.
There's a number of issues with this:
* People expect when they see 'freeze is tuesday' that they will have at least part of tuesday to finish things, when in fact the freeze takes effect right at the very first seconds of 'tuesday' and they don't have the time they expect.
* 00:00UTC is early evening for releng folks in the us and late at night for releng members elsewhere. Making changes then can leed to mistakes or less review because fewer people are around. Issues are often not seen until the next day.
* Other milestones (like release itself or unfreeze dates) don't take place at 00:00UTC, so it's also odd from that perspective.
I'd like to propose we move this from 00:00UTC on the day of freeze to 18:00UTC on the day of freeze. That gives people a chunk of the day to finish things, releng can do changes 20 hours later so it doesn't have to be in the middle of the night and it's more in line when we do releases. Another alternative might be to do 15:00UTC so it's the same as release time.
Thoughts?
@mohanboddu @bcotton
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8712
4 years, 7 months
[releng] Issue #8715: Unretire pacrunner
by Lubomir Rintel
lkundrak reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
Please unretire the `pacrunner` package that was orphaned and remove because it FTBFS. I'll fix the build and take care of the package maintainership.
The package is still orphaned for less than 8 weeks, so no re-review necessary.
Thank you!
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8715
4 years, 7 months