devel January 2021

devel@lists.centos.org

71 participants
46 discussions

Introducing the ARC sub-team in CPE - and first research topic
by Pierre-Yves Chibon 18 Jan '21

18 Jan '21

Good Morning Everyone, While planning work, the CPE team has realized that a number of our initiatives actually start with a research phase to find the most appropriate technical solution. This leads to some issues with planning as without knowing the technical solution we want to take, it's hard to evaluate the amount of work needed and thus the time it'll take to do it. In order to help with this, we're creating a small sub-team in CPE, called the ARC team for Advance Reconaissance Crew*. The goal of this team will be to investigate what we believe to be the possible technical solutions for initiatives and advise the team on what they believe would be the appropriate solution. To this end, we will reach out when we start looking for ideas as you may have ideas that we did not think about. The first investigation, led by Will Woods, Mark O'Brien and I, will be around datanommer and datagrepper. datanommer is an application listening to fedmsg and filling a (postgresql) database with all the messages passing on the bus. datagrepper is a web application exposing these messages and offering a way to filter or search them. available at: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/ Currently our ideas are: - for datanommer: - port it to fedora-messaging - adjust it to whichever solution we chose to replace datagrepper - for datagrepper: - keep it as is - Replace by - postgres https://postgrest.org/ - prest https://github.com/prest/prest - kinto https://docs.kinto-storage.org/en/stable/ - Swagger/OpenAPI https://swagger.io/ - Add support for Graphql - for the postgresql server - Split messages per year in different table - Unite them using a postgresql view - Kick out the old messages per year - Keep the current year + n-1 in the current DB - Kick the other to another DB? - Kick the other to a tarball somewhere? - Output the database daily dump to file / year - TimescaleDB a postgresql plugin for time-series data - https://alibaba-cloud.medium.com/postgresql-time-series-database-plug-in-ti… - https://dev.t-matix.com/blog/postgresql-as-a-time-series-database/ - https://docs.timescale.com/latest/introduction - Make the msg field in the message table be a JSON field Would you have any other ideas of things we could look at? Looking forward for your input, Thanks, Pierre, Will and Mark * Our notes and documentation are hosted at: https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html

1 0

Status of CentOS SIGs
by Rich Bowen 18 Jan '21

18 Jan '21

Hi, folks, In yesterday's board meeting, the board asked me to report on the status of all of our SIGs. I have put together this report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e6Bw1x7ReDOuk4rrPz-Wl4EBaEicLG35rJb8P7_… - which covers all of the SIGs which are listed on https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup If you are involved in any SIG, please review what I have written there, and make any comments/corrections that you feel are warranted, so that I am passing the most accurate information possible to the board. Thanks!

6 10

Questions regarding CS8
by Alex Iribarren 18 Jan '21

18 Jan '21

Hi all, We're starting to look at CentOS Stream 8 and we have some questions that we haven't been able to find clear answers for. The closest we've come is "stay tuned", I'm hoping to get a clearer timeline. 1. When will Stream source RPMs appear in `vault.centos.org`? (Bugs [#17951](https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17951) and [#16715](https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16715)). 2. When will debuginfo RPMs appear in `debuginfo.centos.org`? 3. When will the CentOS Stream 8 docker image be built? When will it be available in [dockerhub](https://hub.docker.com/_/centos)? [Bug #17973](https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17973) 4. How will updates to Stream be handled? For example, will there be multiple "major" (ie. 4.18.0-259) kernel families in Stream, and then one of those will be picked to be the RH 8.4 kernel? Or will there usually be only one, and Stream's current 4.18.0-259 kernel family become the kernel of RH 8.4? 5. What is going to be in the [cr](http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8-stream/cr/) repository of Stream? Will those be updates that have yet to make it into CentOS Stream? How often will that repository be updated? 6. When I asked some of these questions on IRC in #centos-devel, I was told that the "Stream team" is in #centos-stream. Is there actually a different team? Is #centos-stream, and not #centos-devel, the canonical chat channel? Apologies in advance if some of these questions have already been answered, it's hard to keep up with the hundreds of messages over Christmas. Cheers, Alex

2 2

Re: [CentOS-devel] Upgrade to Stream wants to downgrade e.g. httpd
by redbaronbrowser 16 Jan '21

16 Jan '21

On Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:23 AM, orkcu via CentOS-devel <centos-devel(a)centos.org> wrote: > Considering that CentOS 8.5 will never be, a year from now (6 month only?) you will not have this issue, as Baron said, with new packages coming to Stream the issue will go away naturally unless you want to move from RHEL to CentOS Yes, I want to move from RHEL to Stream. If someone reports a bug in RHEL 8.5 then I want to be able to advocate for them to test that Stream fixes the issue. It is more likely they will have a RHEL 8.5 template to create a test virtual machine than a Stream template. I don't think it is unfair to assume they may use RHEL 8.5 as the starting point for trying Stream. If we aren't building a community that can advocate for use cases of Stream, then I'm confused what the goal of Stream is. If the goal is that Stream is to be PUBLICLY available as-is for people to try similar to what OpenSolaris ended up being, then that is fine but that should be clearly stated. If the goal is that Stream is to be OPEN to encourage building a community for two-way dialogue, then I think we can do better than suggest no one should ever want to side-grade from RHEL to Stream. There is advantages and disadvantage to either goal. I just would like to establish which it is and then set bug/feature requests accordingly.

5 8

CPE Weekly: 2021-01-15
by Aoife Moloney 15 Jan '21

15 Jan '21

Hi Everyone, New Year, same CPE weekly(ish) :) If you would like to see this report and toggle to the section you are most interested in, I would suggest visiting this link https://hackmd.io/8iV7PilARSG68Tqv8CzKOQ?view and use the header bar on your left to skip to where you want to go! ## General Project Updates We are kicking off Q1 this year with some familiar project faces, namely Noggin, the replacement of the current FAS system and continuing our development of CentOS Stream. Most of our initiatives live here https://pagure.io/cpe/initiatives-proposal and you can use the new issue button to submit your own proposal. Our updated initative timetable can be viewed here for 2021 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/cpe/time_tables/ so you know when I need it in by to review it. We also have updated our docs section on the initiative process we follow as we cannot accept everything so please do check it out if you want to understand our process more https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/cpe/initiatives/ ### Misc #### GitLab Being very honest, I've found myself a little bit strapped for time to give this project its due diligence over the last few months, but please bear with us/me and expect a more concentrated effort on this coming into Q2 (April, May, June) of this year. I apologise for the time a resolution is taking and I really do appreciate all of your patience. ## Project Updates *The below updates are pulled directly from our CPE team call we have every week.* ## CentOS Updates ### CentOS * Community newsletter can be read here https://blog.centos.org/2021/01/centos-community-newsletter-january-2020-21… ### CentOS Stream * Continuing to work on Stream 8 pushes and builds * Investigating how to automate some module pushes * Reviewing documentation that is available on Stream currently to identify gaps and where needs improvement ### Fedora * OSBS is building for aarm64 & x86_64 in production since December! * All of the projects under the fedora-infra and releng namespaces on pagure have had their default branch migrated from “master” to “main”. * F34 mass rebuild due to start next week ### Noggin/AAA * New sprint started focusing on testing correct access has been given per user/account * Last remaining apps being configured & tested with fasjson API * Work will be tracked here https://github.com/fedora-infra/aaa-tracker/issues/4 * Our open issues board can be found here https://github.com/orgs/fedora-infra/projects/6 ### Fedora Messaging Schemas * We are working through supybot and greenwave applications currently * There is a list of applications that require messaging schemas can be found here https://hackmd.io/@nilsph/H1i8CAbkP/edit * There is a readme which contains documentation on messaging schemas, a cookie-cutter template to create the schema and a definition of Done for writing a schemas https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedora-messaging-schemas-issues * The board they are working from can be viewed here https://github.com/orgs/fedora-infra/projects/7 ## Team Info ### Background: The Community Platform Engineering group, or CPE for short, 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. See our wiki page here for more information:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/cpe/ 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?view -- Aoife Moloney Product Owner Community Platform Engineering Team Red Hat EMEA Communications House Cork Road Waterford

1 0

[CloudSIG] RDO plans to move to CentOS Stream
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 14 Jan '21

14 Jan '21

Hi, As you know, CentOS announced recently that they will be focusing on CentOS Stream [1] and that CentOS Linux 8 will be EOL at the end of 2021 [2]. In order to align with this change, the RDO project is adapting the roadmap for the current and upcoming releases: - RDO Wallaby (ETA is end of April 2021 [3]) will be built, tested and released only for CentOS 8 Stream. - RDO CloudSIG repos for Victoria and Ussuri will be updated and tested for both CentOS Stream and CentOS Linux 8 until end of 2021 and then continue on CentOS Stream. - In the upcoming weeks, we will create new RDO CloudSIG repos for Victoria and Ussuri for CentOS Stream 8. - RDO Trunk repositories (aka DLRN repos) will be built and tested using CentOS 8 Stream for all releases currently using CentOS Linux 8 (starting with Train). If you are interested in the details about these plans and how we plan to implement it, we've created a blog post [4]. Don't hesitate to ask us in the ML or in the #rdo channel on freenode if you have questions or suggestions about this. We are also organizing a video AMA about RDO and CentOS Stream on Thursday Jan 21 1600 UTC in the RDO Meet room https://meet.google.com/uzo-tfkt-top On behalf of RDO, Alfredo [1] https://centos.org/distro-faq/ [2] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/ [3] https://releases.openstack.org/ [4] https://blogs.rdoproject.org/2021/01/rdo-plans-to-move-to-centos-stream/

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] Upgrade to Stream wants to downgrade e.g. httpd
by Yedidyah Bar David 14 Jan '21

14 Jan '21

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 3:23 PM orkcu via CentOS-devel <centos-devel(a)centos.org> wrote: > > Considering that CentOS 8.5 will never be, a year from now (6 month only?) you will not have this issue, as Baron said, with new packages coming to Stream the issue will go away naturally unless you want to move from RHEL to CentOS I can definitely see myself wanting to move from RHEL (or a rebuild) to Stream in the future, for specific uses/machines. And I do not think this is a unique/strange/corner case. I agree it's probably not the most common one. -- Didi

1 0

Upgrade to Stream wants to downgrade e.g. httpd
by Yedidyah Bar David 14 Jan '21

14 Jan '21

Hi all, I have a CentOS 8.3 machine I want to upgrade to Stream following [1]. After fighting with it a bit due to oVirt-specific issues [2], I reached the current point: doing 'dnf update' updated everything nicely, but now doing 'dnf distro-sync' wants to downgrade these packages: Downgrading: httpd x86_64 2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+462+ba287492.0.1 appstream 1.7 M httpd-filesystem noarch 2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+462+ba287492.0.1 appstream 37 k httpd-tools x86_64 2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+462+ba287492.0.1 appstream 104 k mod_ssl x86_64 1:2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+462+ba287492.0.1 appstream 133 k python3-docutils noarch 0.14-12.module_el8.3.0+389+6a62c88d appstream 1.6 M python36 x86_64 3.6.8-2.module_el8.3.0+389+6a62c88d appstream 19 k I specifically mention httpd in Subject because that's the one I spent some time looking at, but the issue is general. I currently have httpd-2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+561+97fdbbcc.x86_64 . It seems to be the result of [3], which says it was built from: git+https://git.centos.org/rpms/httpd#2f74eecf85362e67c403b7b1386a729da3e5c… . distro-sync wants to downgrade to 2.4.37-30.module_el8.3.0+462+ba287492.0.1 , which seems to be the result of [4], which says it was built from: git+https://git.centos.org/rpms/httpd#fcb5444a5c0aefcd065e6c4a805a454e4988b… . cloning the git repo, and then checking the difference between them, I get: $ git diff 2f74eecf fcb5444a diff --git a/SPECS/httpd.spec b/SPECS/httpd.spec index 8322bd8..7d66f2e 100644 --- a/SPECS/httpd.spec +++ b/SPECS/httpd.spec @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Summary: Apache HTTP Server Name: httpd Version: 2.4.37 -Release: 30%{?dist} +Release: 30%{?dist}.0.1 URL: https://httpd.apache.org/ Source0: https://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-%{version}.tar.bz2 Source1: centos-noindex-8.0.tar.gz So: 1. The sources seem to be identical, right now, with the only difference being the 'Release:'. 2. I failed to find where '462+ba287492' and '561+97fdbbcc' are coming from. I assume they are automatically-generated during the build process, but not saved in the dist-git repo. These seem to be what's causing the "newer" version in Stream to be considered a "Downgrade" - 462 < 561. Perhaps they are some kind of timestamps, or increasing counters, etc., and '462' was built earlier than '561', even if in all other regards it should be considered "newer". 3. Perhaps the intention was to have the release in Stream: Release: 30.0.1%{?dist} ? I think this would have caused this to not be considered a downgrade. I might be missing something. 4. IMO this is a bit confusing/discouraging. Can/Do we do anything so that 8-Stream packages are always >= 8.3 ones? Perhaps a fix should be manually applied to each and every package (if at all), but just generating a report somewhere, perhaps with a place to a link to a bug per package as applicable, can be done in batch, more-or-less, if I got it right. Do we have something like this? Do we want something like this? 5. Perhaps (alternatively?), Stream's version should just be rebuilt, e.g. with 'Release: 30%{?dist}.0.2'. Thanks and best regards, [1] https://www.centos.org/centos-stream/ [2] https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-cockpit-sso/pull/30 [3] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=14516 [4] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=12971 -- Didi

6 8

[CloudSIG] Questions about adopting CentOS 8 Stream
by Alfredo Moralejo Alonso 14 Jan '21

14 Jan '21

Hi, In Cloud SIG, we are planning adoption to CentOS 8 Stream. I'd like to clarify what will be the workflow and get some info about open questions and issues before starting to request stuff. IIUC, the intended workflow to build, ship and consume packages for c8s should be pretty similar to the current one: Build: 1. Request new tags which will use C8S buildroot, something like cloud8s-openstack-victoria-*. 2. Build from srpm on those new tags. Ship: 3. Tagging into cloud8s-openstack-victoria-testing will trigger automatically shipping a package under https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victori… (note 8-stream in url). 4. Tagging into cloud8s-openstack-victoria-release will trigger automatically shipping a package under http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/ (note 8-stream in url) Consume: 5. Users in a C8S box, install the release rpm from extras centos-release-openstack-victoria and repos are configured to use from 8-stream URLs. Please confirm this is the intended workflow or if there is any change. I assume we can maintain separated repos for C8 and C8S with different or same (cross-tagged) packages in the SIG. Now, some questions: - The release RPMs will be the same for C8 and C8S (as it is currently) or can be different?, we may have a new release only for C8S and not for C8 so we may need different release rpms. - Do we need to adjust somehow the .repo to point to the right URLs in C8 or C8S (i thing $releasever points to 8 in centos-stream). - Is the infra already ready to build and push packages for C8S or are there open issues that we should be aware of?, is the automated push and ship based on tagging/untagging ready for C8S builds? - Is there any change in naming convention for tags, repos, etc... (i assumed <signame>8s- instead of <signame>8- ). - Should we use a different disttag for C8S buildroots?, (I'd prefer to stay with regular .el8). Best regards, Alfredo

2 2

NFV SIG meeting minutes - 2021-Jan-13
by Thomas F Herbert 13 Jan '21

13 Jan '21

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel January 2021