[pungi-fedora] Issue #981: please add 'rdma-core' into multilib white list

[Honggang Li]

honli reported a new issue against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following:
``
After cut the base sub-package from all sub-packages to address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901086 , it introduces regression
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919864#c9 .

Please add 'rdma-core' into multilib white list. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kamil Páral]

kparal added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
A note for @mohanboddu , @kevin or whoever gets to commit the change - the change is
needed just in Rawhide/Branched in this case. Thank you.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kalev Lember]

kalev added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I quickly looked at rdma-core packaging and I'm wondering if it really needs to be
multilib?  It doesn't ship anything at all under /usr/lib64 so even if it is shipped
as multilib, its contents is going to exactly match between i686 and x86_64.

I understand the reason for filing this ticket is that people updating from F32 and F33
are running into a multilib issue due to a dependency chain where rdma-core was pulled in
as a library dependency. This is of course a real issue, but I wonder if there's maybe
a different way to solve it?

Maybe rdma-core self-obsoletes would be enough to get rid of the installed multilib
version when doing updates so it doesn't need to be in the multilib whitelist?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kamil Páral]

kparal added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Hey Kalev. The F32/F33 issue was resolved by @honli reverting the packaging changes:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b6cae5ac96
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-987b06d6fe

So we only care about Rawhide now. I specifically noted in
[bugzilla](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919864#c6) that I don't know
whether rdma-core needs to be multilib, I hoped @honli would know. But if you think it
doesn't, what is the proper way how to end multilib for a package when people start
upgrading to F34? I couldn't find any packaging guide documentation for it. Can you
add Obsoletes to the spec file which would only apply for the x86_64 package and it would
only obsolete the i686 package?

Btw, I see that rdma-core contains `/usr/sbin/rdma-ndd`. Can the binary be a reason to
ship this as multilib?
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kalev Lember]

kalev added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Hey Kamil,

I totally agree that it's best to do these kinds of changes in Rawhide only to avoid
accidentally breaking people's F32/F33 systems. Good call on reverting the packaging
changes there.

As for `/usr/sbin/rdma-ndd`, I don't think it should be a reason for the package to be
multilib. When a multilib package ships a binary under /usr/sbin or /usr/bin, rpmbuild
marks the files there with a certain "file color" (see `rpm -q --filecolor
rdma-core | grep bin`) which makes it so that when both the i686 and x86_64 version of the
rpm are installed, only the x86_64 version of the binary (`/usr/sbin/rdma-ndd`) is
actually on the disk. This is how we do multilib in Fedora: there's parallel
installation of libraries under lib/lib64, but for binaries, only the x86_64 version is
actually installed on the disk.

My understanding of the issue here is that rdma-core was historically multilib because the
way it was packaged (various library packages had an archful dep on the rdma-core
package), not because anyone actually needed rdma-core to be multilib.

So to me it would make sense to instead try to make it so that rdma-core stops being
multilib :)

I would suggest trying to add
```
# Self-obsoletes to remove unneeded multilib version on upgrades
# This is safe to remove in Fedora 36 but is needed in older versions in order to support
F33->F35 upgrades.
Obsoletes: %{name} < %{version}-%{release}
```

to the rdma-core package main section and putting that to rawhide and then once it makes
it to composes, do a distro upgrade test from F33 (dnf install rdma-core.i686
rdma-core.x86_64) and see if the i686 version gets correctly removed when updating to
rawhide.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Honggang Li]

honli added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  My understanding of the issue here is that rdma-core was historically
> multilib because the way it was packaged (various library packages had an archful dep on
> the rdma-core package), not because anyone actually needed rdma-core to be multilib.
>  
I think you are right. I have no idea why rdma-core was being multilib.

I opened ticket issue to avoid regression issue for Fedora Rawhide (F34) multilib users.

>  
>  So to me it would make sense to instead try to make it so that rdma-core stops being
> multilib :)
>  
>  
Let's try to stop it being multilib for Fedora rawhide. If it is really has to be
multilib, we can revert what we changed for Fedora rawhide.


``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kalev Lember]

kalev added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I put my suggestion to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rdma-core/pull-request/7 if you
want to review and merge.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Kamil Páral]

kparal added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Thanks, Kalev. @honli , can you please close this ticket, so that releng folks know that
we no longer want it in the multilib whitelist? We can continue the discussion in the PR,
if needed.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Honggang Li]

The status of the issue: `please add 'rdma-core' into multilib white list` of
project: `pungi-fedora` has been updated to: Closed as Fixed by honli.

https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981

[Honggang Li]

honli added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Thanks all for your help.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/981