devel

devel@lists.centos.org

2 participants
4653 discussions

CentOS Hyperscale SIG Quarterly Report for 2022Q1
by Davide Cavalca 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hello, I've published our quarterly update for the Hyperscale SIG activities on the CentOS Blog: https://blog.centos.org/2022/04/centos-hyperscale-sig-quarterly-report-for-… Cheers Davide

3 2

9 - ? - all *release* packages
by lejeczek 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hi guys Why are *release* packages are still absent in 9? We (admins/users) read docs - take recently mentioned here Hyperscale SIG - do dns this *release* do dnf that *release* - dnf install centos-hyperscale-release - but, those are nowhere to be found or.. have I gone blind? If this all is delayed deliberately - may I ask why? many thanks, L.

4 7

repomd.xml.asc outdated for extras
by Leon Fauster 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

In some kind related to https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/550 repomd.xml and repomd.xml.asc out of "sync" for http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8-stream/extras/x86_64/os/repodata/ [TXT] repomd.xml 2022-03-28 13:52 2.9K [TXT] repomd.xml.asc 2022-03-24 00:40 811 I believe that a repo sync would sync the entire directory. So, the origin is already providing a signed file that is outdated, thought ... -- Leon

2 2

announcing "extras-common" repo for Stream 8 , managed by SIGs
by Fabian Arrotin 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Following what was already implement for CentOS Stream 9 (see the https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2021-November/098666.html thread), we have also created new tags on cbs.centos.org to let SIG build/push their centos-release-* pkg (containing their public gpg key, and .repo files for dnf/yum) for CentOS Stream 8. While the extras8s-extras-common-{candidate,testing,release} tags were all created some time ago (and some SIGs already tried this for -testing tag, with pkgs landing on https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8-stream/extras/) the -release tag itself was still locked, until the same mechanism that was implemented for Stream 9 would be working for Stream 8. Now that newer centos-gpg-keys-8-6.el8.noarch and centos-stream-repos- 8-6.el8.noarch packages are available in CentOS Stream 8 BaseOS, that means that we have now unlocked the extras8s-extras-common-release tag and so SIGs can from now on just build and tag their centos-release* packages directly through cbs and not having to ask a CentOS Stream core member to just rebuild it through distro koji (aka https://koji.mbox.centos.org) PS : as you can see the /8-stream/extras/<basearch>/os/ repo is still there,and still available on every installed CentOS 8s, but is also "frozen" from now on. The new extras-common will be populated with new builds coming from cbs.centos.org koji exclusively (as it's the case for CentOS Stream 9) -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab

1 0

Announcement: livesys-scripts v0.1.0
by Neal Gompa 28 Mar '22

28 Mar '22

Hello all, Over the past few months, I've been working on building new image build descriptions for the CentOS Hyperscale SIG and Fedora Cloud WG so we can migrate away from Oz/ImageFactory[0]. One detour that I took as part of doing this is an attempt to simplify the creation of live media. The tool I'm using for the Hyperscale SIG live media for CentOS Stream 9 is called kiwi[1] and it notably does not support the same script merging+inheritance model that Lorax[2] and livecd-tools[3] support that we rely on for correctly assembling the livesys init script (!!!) used to bootstrap the live environment correctly. I took a day to analyze the scripts across all the live media we have right now and made an initial attempt to convert them into more regular scripts that are invoked from systemd services. The result is livesys-scripts, which just landed in Fedora and EPEL 8/9. The project sources for livesys-scripts is here: https://pagure.io/livesys-scripts The livesys-scripts package should be agnostic to the image build tool. If you're previously relying on assembling the init script (e.g. fedora-kickstarts), the way to switch over is: 1. Delete the init script assembly logic from your kickstarts 2. Add livesys-scripts to %packages section 3. Enable livesys.service and livesys-late.service in services stanza 4. If your live ISO has a desktop environment in it, set livesys_session in /etc/sysconfig/livesys to load the correct subscript in %post. (The choices currently are: gnome, kde, cinnamon, mate, xfce, lxqt, lxde, soas, i3) If more desktops need to be supported, contribution via pull request is welcome! :) The intent of this is to make it easier to support building Fedora(ish) live media across a wider range of tools and also to synchronize what it does with improvements in dracut over time. The livesys-scripts are old and much of its functionality belongs in dracut itself. This is something that will hopefully be corrected in the near future... So, give it a try and let me know how it goes! :) [0]: https://imgfac.org/ [1]: http://osinside.github.io/kiwi/ [2]: https://weldr.io/lorax/ [3]: https://github.com/livecd-tools/livecd-tools -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

1 0

CPE Weekly Update – Week of March 21st – 25th
by Michal Konecny 25 Mar '22

25 Mar '22

Hi everyone, This is a weekly report from the CPE (Community Platform Engineering) Team. If you have any questions or feedback, please respond to this report or contact us on #redhat-cpe channel on libera.chat (https://libera.chat/) If you wish to read this in form of a blog post, check the post on Fedora community blog: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/cpe-weekly-update-week-of-march-21s… # Highlights of the week ## Infrastructure & Release Engineering Goal of this Initiative ----------------------- Purpose of this team is to take care of day to day business regarding CentOS and Fedora Infrastructure and Fedora release engineering work. It’s responsible for services running in Fedora and CentOS infrastructure and preparing things for the new Fedora release (mirrors, mass branching, new namespaces etc.). The ARC (which is a subset of the team) investigates possible initiatives that CPE might take on. Link to planning board: https://zlopez.fedorapeople.org/I&R-23-03-2022.pdf Update ------ ### Fedora Infra * Fixed cert generation in ipa staging (needed upgrade run) * Found problem with proxies that stopped processing, was an apache bug. Downgraded back to previous stable version. * Good progress on testing ansible upgrade. Successfully run playbooks with python3.8/ansible-core-2.12.3. * Usual business. ### CentOS Infra including CentOS CI * Kicked off work for the ansible [2.9.x => 5.x](https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/496) (good progress so far) * WIP : new lookaside structure and [building from gitlab](https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/645) (working but need now just last steps like centpkg-minimal) * Last [centos-repos](https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/698) should enable the extras-common repo for SIGs (autonomous from koji.mbox.centos.org koji builds) * Multiple 1:1 with phsmoura for infra onboarding * Working on [image-build issue](https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/708) as first ticket * Bussiness as usual: new koji tags , projects on git.centos.org/rpms ### Release Engineering * F36 Beta 1.4 * Work on SCM request automation should be finished this week - [PR](https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/toddlers/pull-request/93) ## CentOS Stream Goal of this Initiative ----------------------- This initiative is working on CentOS Stream/Emerging RHEL to make this new distribution a reality. The goal of this initiative is to prepare the ecosystem for the new CentOS Stream. Updates ------- * Troubleshooting CCCC service issues * Build & pushing Extras repos for CentOS Stream 8, once built, tags will be available * Content resolver can now differentiate between warnings (when a workload lists packages that don't exist) and failures (actual dependency problems). * DC move went well, all systems operational again ## CentOS Duffy CI Goal of this Initiative ----------------------- Duffy is a system within CentOS CI Infra which allows tenants to provision and access bare metal resources of multiple architectures for the purposes of CI testing. We need to add the ability to checkout VMs in CentOS CI in Duffy. We have OpenNebula hypervisor available, and have started developing playbooks which can be used to create VMs using the OpenNebula API, but due to the current state of how Duffy is deployed, we are blocked with new dev work to add the VM checkout functionality. Updates ------- * Focusing on documentation this week https://github.com/CentOS/duffy/issues/253 ## Bodhi Goal of this Initiative ----------------------- This initiative is to separate Bodhi into multiple sub packages, fix integration and unit tests in CI, fix dependency management and automate part of the release process. Read ARC team findings in detail at: https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/bodhi/index.html Updates ------- * Got rid of the DeclEnumType warning with SQLAlchemy 1.4+ * Use namespace packages in accordance with current recommendations (avoiding needless .pth files) * Copy severity when obsoleting a security update * Updated Vagrant docs * Dependency management (ongoing) * Added procedure for pushing the snapshots to staging ## EPEL Goal of this initiative ----------------------- Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (or EPEL) is a Fedora Special Interest Group that creates, maintains, and manages a high quality set of additional packages for Enterprise Linux, including, but not limited to, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), CentOS and Scientific Linux (SL), Oracle Linux (OL). EPEL packages are usually based on their Fedora counterparts and will never conflict with or replace packages in the base Enterprise Linux distributions. EPEL uses much of the same infrastructure as Fedora, including buildsystem, bugzilla instance, updates manager, mirror manager and more. Updates ------- * EPEL9 up to 2187 source packages (increase of 39 from last week) * Notable EPEL9 packages now available: * [KDE Plasma](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedo… * openvpn and NetworkManager-openvpn * Several ansible collections (general, mysql, rabbitmq, podman) Kindest regards, CPE Team

1 0

KDE ready for testing in RHEL9Beta / CentOS Stream 9
by Troy Dawson 22 Mar '22

22 Mar '22

For those of you who want to use KDE on RHEL9 Beta, or CentOS Stream 9, it is available via EPEL. It is currently plasma 5.23.5, kf5 5.90.0, qt5 5.15.2. There might be an update before RHEL 9.0 is released. There is currently a critical selinux bug[1] that prevents KDE from starting. That is the reason I have not sent this out earlier. When that get's fixed, I'll update these instructions. Note: All these steps should be done as sudo or root. Step 0 - Manually fix selinux bug setsebool -P selinuxuser_execmod 1 Step 1 - Enable CRB and Install epel-release [2] # RHEL 9 Beta subscription-manager repos --enable codeready-builder-beta-for-rhel-9-$(arch)-rpms dnf install https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/epel-release-latest-9.noarch.rpm # CentOS Stream 9 dnf config-manager --set-enabled crb dnf install epel-release epel-next-release Step 2 - Install KDE dnf group install "KDE Plasma Workspaces" or dnf group install kde-desktop Step 2.a - (Optional) Install other kde groups dnf group install kde-media dnf group install kde-apps dnf install okular Step 2.b - (Optional) Set sddm as desktop manager dnf install sddm\* -y systemctl enable sddm -f Step 3 - Ensure you boot into graphical mode systemctl set-default graphical.target Step 4 - Reboot and enjoy It is recommended that you log into the Plasma (X11) vs Plasma (Wayland). There are several non-critical wayland bugs. These bugs are being addressed but aren't expected to be fixed until the RHEL 9.1 timeframe. Troy Dawson [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058657 [2] - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/#_el9

3 3

CentOS Stream 9 Build environment outage today
by Brian Stinson 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi Folks, We have a migration in progress for the CentOS Stream 9 environment today. This will affect access to kojihub.stream.centos.org while we work on this. I'll post a note here when our outage is clear. Mirror content will remain available, composes.stream.centos.org may be affected periodically throughout the day. --Brian

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term
by Josh Boyer 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:59 PM Dan Čermák <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> writes: > > > snip > > > That could obviously have pretty significant consequences for Fedora. > > Bugzilla isn't only an issue tracker for Fedora; we run some > > significant processes through it, notably the Change process, the > > blocker/FE bug process, and the prioritized bug process. In A World > > Without Bugzilla all of those would need adapting (and their > > documentation updating). There's fairly tight integration between Bodhi > > and Bugzilla, which would need to be redesigned. Those are just things > > I can think of off the top of my head. There are also a couple of > > decades worth of internet links to Fedora issues on RH Bugzilla, of > > course. > > > > I guess the two big choices for Fedora if RH said "we're not > > maintaining Bugzilla any more" would be 1) take over maintaining > > Bugzilla or 2) switch to something else. 1) would probably be the path > > of least resistance, I guess. > > Short term it is the path of the least resistance, but at least what > I've heard from $dayjob, maintaining a Bugzilla instance is no easy > task, as they are often customized (via non-upstream patches) and this > all needs to be maintained. I cannot speak for our infra team, but I > really don't know if they'd like yet another huge service, because this > effectively means they'd have to take over maintenance of > bugzilla.redhat.com... > > > > > This does also kinda lead to a larger question for me, trying to wear > > both Red Hat and Fedora hats at the same time[0]. I wonder if we're > > kind of lacking a...mechanism, for want of a better word, to handle the > > *generic* case here. Let's rewind to Ye Olde Days, when "the Fedora > > project" first started. At that point Fedora and Red Hat shared a lot > > of tooling and infrastructure, and this was useful to both sides in > > many ways; it saves on development costs and it makes it easy for > > people to work in both worlds. With my Red Hat on, I think I'm allowed > > to say that internally we often talk about this being desirable - > > having consistency between how X is done in Fedora and how it's done > > for RHEL - and it obviously has benefits to Fedora too (it means we > > don't have to find the resources to do that same work at Fedora level). > > > > However, situations like this make me wonder if we might have an issue > > with keeping shared infra/tooling where it's desirable. It seems like > > this is a decision/conversation that's been happening within RH, about > > what makes sense for RH in terms of RHEL development. AFAIK this is the > > first time it's been formally talked about in a Fedora context, and the > > messaging is "RH has already decided to stop using Bugzilla for RHEL > > after 9". In other words, RH has decided on its own to move away from > > something that is part of the shared RH/Fedora "heritage way of doing > > things". > > > > I'm not saying that's wrong, but as I said it does make me wonder > > whether, if both sides do find shared tooling/approaches beneficial, we > > might want to approach this kind of potential change differently in > > future. Otherwise it does seem like we could sort of gradually drift > > apart, with no explicit intention to do so, and lose the benefits of > > shared tooling and process. Unless the ultimate outcome of this is > > "Fedora adopts issues.redhat.com for bug tracking" - which would be a > > possibility, but doesn't seem like a certainty - the result will be > > that we go from having a shared bug tracker, with the benefits of > > shared maintenance and being able to easily clone or reference bugs > > between Fedora and RHEL, to each maintaining our own bug tracker and > > not having those benefits. > > > > Of course, there would be sensitivities in developing such a process - > > it could look a lot like Red Hat telling Fedora how to do stuff, which > > I think isn't exactly the relationship we want to have. But at the same > > time I'm not sure "Red Hat or Fedora just deciding unilaterally to stop > > using this thing they'd previously both used" is always the best choice > > either. > > No, certainly not. I think it would have been nice if the tooling > discussion happened before RH decided to drop Bugzilla so that we can > all use a common tooling. However, I also know that in a business RHEL is choosing not to use Bugzilla for future versions of RHEL. I need to be clear in wording there, because Red Hat is a company, RHEL is one of its products, and we're only talking about newer versions of that product. I am not aware of any plans for Red Hat to drop Bugzilla. I am aware of plans for newer versions of RHEL to no longer use Bugzilla. > sometimes reaching such a consensus is everything but easy. It would > have been nice if someone at least tried though. Tried what, to be precise? If you mean try to find common tooling between Fedora and RHEL, well we have off and on for years. Several things work. Many didn't. If you mean try to use bugzilla, we've been trying for the last 5 years internally to make it work in conjunction with issues.redhat.com. It's not working and it's time to consolidate to a single tool. That decision has no direct bearing on Fedora though. If you mean try having a conversation with the community before something goes into effect... that's what this thread is. Depending on how you count, at least a year in advance if not 3. If you meant something else, I've missed it. josh

1 0

Re: [CentOS-devel] RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term
by Josh Boyer 15 Mar '22

15 Mar '22

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! > > > > As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux release > > cadence, RHEL 9 development is starting to wrap up with the spring > > 2022 release coming soon. That means planning for the next release > > will start in earnest in the very near future. As some of you may > > know, Red Hat has been using both Bugzilla and Jira via > > issues.redhat.com for RHEL development for several years. Our > > intention is to move to using issues.redhat.com only for the major > > RHEL releases after RHEL 9. > > > > What does this mean for Fedora and CentOS? This discussion is in part > > to figure that out. Based on some very brief analysis, the following > > should hold: > > > > - RHEL customers should continue to file support cases through the Red > > Hat Customer portal, which will remain consistent regardless of the > > backend tooling used. > > > > - There is no imminent retirement of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance > > being planned at this time. RHEL 7, 8, and 9 will continue to use > > bugzilla in some form and RHEL 9 has a very long lifecycle. > > > > - Fedora Linux and EPEL have their own Bugzilla product families and > > are not directly impacted in their own workflows by the choice to use > > only issues.redhat.com for RHEL. > > - There will be impacts on existing documentation that provide > > guidance on requesting things from RHEL in various places like EPEL. > > We will be happy to help adjust these. > > > > - CentOS Stream contribution and bug reporting workflows will be > > adjusted to use issues.redhat.com instead of bugzilla in the relevant > > places. This should apply to all versions of CentOS Stream for a > > unified contributor workflow. This will happen gradually as we > > discover the best workflow to use. > > > > If there are other impacts that you can think of, please raise them on > > this thread. We’d like to ensure we’re covering as much as possible > > as this rolls out. > > So if I'm understanding this correctly, the ultimate consequence here > is "Red Hat Bugzilla might go away, or stop being maintained, at > whatever point it's no longer needed for RHEL 9", right? I have no idea, to be honest. There's a lot of assumption in that statement and it certainly could be an outcome, but I'm not aware of any plans towards that directly. > That could obviously have pretty significant consequences for Fedora. > Bugzilla isn't only an issue tracker for Fedora; we run some > significant processes through it, notably the Change process, the > blocker/FE bug process, and the prioritized bug process. In A World > Without Bugzilla all of those would need adapting (and their > documentation updating). There's fairly tight integration between Bodhi > and Bugzilla, which would need to be redesigned. Those are just things > I can think of off the top of my head. There are also a couple of > decades worth of internet links to Fedora issues on RH Bugzilla, of > course. Those all sound like the things I'm familiar with. > I guess the two big choices for Fedora if RH said "we're not > maintaining Bugzilla any more" would be 1) take over maintaining > Bugzilla or 2) switch to something else. 1) would probably be the path > of least resistance, I guess. > > This does also kinda lead to a larger question for me, trying to wear > both Red Hat and Fedora hats at the same time[0]. I wonder if we're > kind of lacking a...mechanism, for want of a better word, to handle the > *generic* case here. Let's rewind to Ye Olde Days, when "the Fedora > project" first started. At that point Fedora and Red Hat shared a lot > of tooling and infrastructure, and this was useful to both sides in > many ways; it saves on development costs and it makes it easy for > people to work in both worlds. With my Red Hat on, I think I'm allowed > to say that internally we often talk about this being desirable - > having consistency between how X is done in Fedora and how it's done > for RHEL - and it obviously has benefits to Fedora too (it means we > don't have to find the resources to do that same work at Fedora level). Fedora and RHEL process and tooling has deviated significantly over the years. So much so that by the time I joined the RHEL team, it was already very different. That was almost 5 years ago, which means the individual decisions that led to it were even earlier. I don't really want to revisit those decisions because I wasn't around and can't speak to why they were made, but the connection between Fedora and RHEL via bugzilla is minimal at best. The commonality that brings the most shared benefit is the activities of our communities, the quality and rigor they bring into Fedora, and the sources we share. Tooling and process are orthogonal to those. Important, because they certainly lend themselves to aiding that quality and rigor, but orthogonal. > However, situations like this make me wonder if we might have an issue > with keeping shared infra/tooling where it's desirable. It seems like > this is a decision/conversation that's been happening within RH, about > what makes sense for RH in terms of RHEL development. AFAIK this is the > first time it's been formally talked about in a Fedora context, and the > messaging is "RH has already decided to stop using Bugzilla for RHEL > after 9". In other words, RH has decided on its own to move away from > something that is part of the shared RH/Fedora "heritage way of doing > things". I don't think this is the first instance of those kinds of decisions. It is perhaps one of the few instances where we've been up-front about it well in advance. > I'm not saying that's wrong, but as I said it does make me wonder > whether, if both sides do find shared tooling/approaches beneficial, we I think we do in some cases, and not in others. I don't find bugzilla to be one of those. Even the clone function is questionable. > might want to approach this kind of potential change differently in > future. Otherwise it does seem like we could sort of gradually drift > apart, with no explicit intention to do so, and lose the benefits of > shared tooling and process. Unless the ultimate outcome of this is >From my perspective, we minimally share tooling. Process is common in concepts, but RHEL process is far more additive and heavy-weight than anything Fedora does. > "Fedora adopts issues.redhat.com for bug tracking" - which would be a > possibility, but doesn't seem like a certainty - the result will be To be clear, it is not an explicit goal for Fedora to adopt issues.redhat.com. That's up to the Fedora project, much as adoption of gitlab was. > that we go from having a shared bug tracker, with the benefits of > shared maintenance and being able to easily clone or reference bugs > between Fedora and RHEL, to each maintaining our own bug tracker and > not having those benefits. Personally, I don't think we're taking advantage of perceived benefits at all. They are effectively separate. > Of course, there would be sensitivities in developing such a process - > it could look a lot like Red Hat telling Fedora how to do stuff, which > I think isn't exactly the relationship we want to have. But at the same > time I'm not sure "Red Hat or Fedora just deciding unilaterally to stop > using this thing they'd previously both used" is always the best choice > either. The Fedora decision is up to Fedora. RHEL is driven by product constraints and will evaluate based on those needs. Where we can align, we should. For a recent example of a decision to align more, look at the CKI project. Both Fedora and RHEL benefit greatly from maintaining the kernel in the CKI manner, and this is the closest the Fedora and RHEL kernels have ever been. josh

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel