devel

devel@lists.centos.org

1 participants
4637 discussions

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

CentOS Dojo @ FOSDEM
by Rich Bowen 11 Jan '21

11 Jan '21

We are pleased to announce a preliminary schedule for the online CentOS Dojo prior to FOSDEM. Details are available here: https://wiki.centos.org/Events/Dojo/FOSDEM2021 Registration will be free, and the link to registration is at the above page.

1 0

Queries on CentOS Stream
by Chan, Catherine [ITS] 09 Jan '21

09 Jan '21

Hi, I'm working in a University and we have a no. of servers running CentOS Linux. We chose CentOS Linux because it is free of charge. Recently we learned that CentOS is shifting focus from CentOS Linux to CentOS Stream. We are very concerned if CentOS Stream requires subscription and if updates/patches for CentOS Stream requires subscription. Can you help on my queries below: Question 1 Referring to 'FAQ - CentOS Project shifts focus to CentOS Stream' (https://centos.org/distro-faq/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/12vidbGo4KDeMy7BxwP79RXZ8adFilOrBfFEAuqwSj1E2G…>): Q2: What about the other releases of CentOS Linux? A: * Updates for the CentOS Linux 6 distribution ended November 30, 2020<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1AFEn0WSozOLnX5KWTyqLb81hqQsytVdWyuFXdazPwmDg4…>. * Updates for the CentOS Linux 7 distribution continue as before until the end of support for RHEL7<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Vjg5-b7gAc7XPdTp009SgavZ85rt-79Y60WEjKdZHhQl-…>. * Updates for the CentOS Linux 8 distribution continue until the end of 2021; users can choose to switch over directly to CentOS Stream 8 * Updates for the CentOS Stream 8 distribution continue through the full RHEL support phase<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Vjg5-b7gAc7XPdTp009SgavZ85rt-79Y60WEjKdZHhQl-…>. We will not be producing a CentOS Linux 9, as a rebuild of RHEL 9. Instead CentOS Stream 9 fulfills this role. (See Q6 below regarding the overlap between concurrent streams.) I don't quite understand the 4th point, 'Updates for the CentOS Stream 8 distribution continue through the full RHEL support phase<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Vjg5-b7gAc7XPdTp009SgavZ85rt-79Y60WEjKdZHhQl-…>'. Can you further elaborate it? Does it mean that users will receive updates/patches for CentOS Stream 8 ONLY if they subscribe full RHEL support? Question 2 In the announcement, it states 'If you are using CentOS Linux 8 in a production environment, and are concerned that CentOS Stream will not meet your needs, we encourage you to contact Red Hat about options.' Can you highlight what are the drawbacks of CentOS Stream causing not encouraged to run on a production environment? Thanks very much in advance. Regards, Catherine Chan [https://www.polyu.edu.hk/emaildisclaimer/PolyU_Email_Signature.jpg] Disclaimer: This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and notify the sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University) immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy or quality of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any views and opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the University and the University accepts no liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any party as a result of the use of such information.

6 8

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