devel

devel@lists.centos.org

3 participants
4613 discussions

Re: [CentOS-devel] Advanced Virtualiazion builds for ppc64le and aarch64 missing on Stream
by Sandro Bonazzola 06 May '21

06 May '21

Il giorno mer 14 apr 2021 alle ore 21:15 Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) < etrunko(a)redhat.com> ha scritto: > On 4/14/21 1:59 PM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > > Hi, > > while verifying https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/ovirt-release/+/114299/ > > <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/ovirt-release/+/114299/> noticed we are > > missing Advanced Virtualization builds for aarch64 and ppc64le on CentOS > > Stream. > > I guess it's similar to what happened with ovirt 4.4 and tracked here: > > https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/254 > > <https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/254> > > Eduardo can you follow up on this and ensure we have ppc64le and aarch64 > > packages there? > > > > Thanks for the heads up. I will check what is going on. > Not sure about the investigations done so far, but in the meanwhile, opened https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/314. > > > -- > Eduardo de Barros Lima (Etrunko) > Software Engineer - Red Hat > etrunko(a)redhat.com > > -- Sandro Bonazzola MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo(a)redhat.com <https://www.redhat.com/> *Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to answer this email out of your office hours. <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1199578>*

1 1

Re: [CentOS-devel] Documentation change propsal - "Contributing to CentOS Stream" web page
by Tomas Tomecek 06 May '21

06 May '21

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 6:18 PM Michal Schorm <mschorm(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:48 AM Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > This is where I'm stopping my replies because your language is just > > way too offensive and I am not interested in this kind of discussion. > > Right, this was a tremendously frustrating week for me and it was > wrong to pour the frustration to you too, as it helps nothing. > I'll try my best to approach it calmly. I understand - so many changes taking place it's easy to get lost and be frustrated. I'm really happy that you didn't fall for the despair fully and that you are now active in improving the workflow, documenting the process, and helping others with questions and problems - that's exactly the collaborative spirit we all should nurture. Keep on the great work! One tip which helps me personally when I feel frustrated, angry, desperate, or just tired: stand up, leave my computer, dress up and take a walk in the fresh air - works all the time for me. > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:48 AM Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 5:14 PM Michal Schorm <mschorm(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > The "Contributing to CentOS Stream" webpage: > > > https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute/CentOSStream > > > is very confusing (at least to me) and lacks a lot of details. > > > > It's true the documentation is not finished yet - the CentOS Stream > > team is planning to provide comprehensive contributor's documentation, > > the wiki is really just an intro. > > I'm glad to hear that ! > It's not clear to me from your sentence - the "comprehensive > contributor's documentation" will be a wiki too or some different > platform ? > Just curious; wiki is IMO fine as long as it accommodates all the needed info. Brian Stinson reached out to me that the team is already working on the documentation over here: https://github.com/CentOS/docs-contributors-guide In the coming weeks, I'd love to migrate the wiki page and all of its subpages to the docs-contributors-guide repository and just link to the rendered version: https://docs.centos.org/en-US/docs/ (tracking jira ticket: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/PACKIT-1362 ) once we start working on the migration, Michal, we'll go through your feedback in this thread and incorporate it into the guide, hope that works for you thank you again for your thorough feedback! > > > (2) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "You should always open a bugzilla first" > > > > > > "Should" ? > > > The process *requires* package maintainers to have the ACKed BZ > > > referenced in the commit message, otherwise it will be impossible to > > > merge it. > > > I haven't heard of any other way, so this should be changed to " *MUST* ". > > > > The reason I wrote "should" there is that it may already be a bugzilla > > opened for the MR. I can see that Rich already changed it to "must" so > > let's keep it that way because that would incentivize potential > > contributors to discuss changes first, which is what we really want. > > > > > Also, the GitLab offers features such as "Issues" and so on. Will > > > those be globally disabled to discourage the contributors to file > > > tickets in the wrong place ? > > > > Yes, issues are disabled. Bugzilla is still the official tracker. > > My confusion originates from the step(s) in the workflow that wasn't > clear to me. > As I understand it *now*, the outside contributors are not supposed to > be responsible for the commits to workflow parts (getting BZ; > referencing it in the commit msg). > > If that's the case, it might be beneficial to mention that the > maintainer will have to deal with that in order for the commit to be > able to be merged; > but the "MUST" seems to be too strong. > However another sentence encouraging to discuss the issue first might > be also nice. > > > > (3) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "As with any open source projects, in the end it's up to > > > maintainers to decide which changes they want to accept and maintain, > > > so Red Hat maintainers can decline contributions for any reason." > > > > > > This sentence is heavily suggesting that only "Red Hat maintainers" > > > have the power to decide the fate of the contributions. > > > > Correct. > > > > > Does that mean that there can be no CentOS stream maintainer that is > > > not a RH employee at the same time ? > > > If yes, why don't make this clear and say it explicitly ? > > > > I'd say it's explicitly stated there already. Please suggest a better > > wording if you have one in your mind already. > > Yes, I would love to have it stated more explicitly. > > What about: > "As with any open source projects, in the end it's up to maintainers > to decide which changes they want to accept and maintain. Since the > CentOS Stream serves as a direct upstream for the RHEL, the > maintainers of the CentOS stream are Red Hat employees and they can > decline contributions for any reason." > > I also tried to stress the likely main reason for MR decline - that it > won't fit RHEL at the end. > > > > > Also if yes, why can't I login to CentOS project using Red Hat > > > credentials or SSO ? > > > > Because the CentOS identity provider is not utilizing Red Hat's SSO - > > I'd suggest starting a new thread for such a request because that's a > > big one. Though you can log in to GitLab via https://red.ht/GitLabSSO > > I will be happy to start the thread. > But first I would like to clarify, what for ate the CentOS FAS > accounts needed, in the case of the very CentOS Stream. > > If the only benefit for the Red Hat employees would be the ability to > update some wiki pages or similar "stuff around", > It would seem perfectly OK to me that anyone who wants to do that can > get that account on their own. > > On the other hand, if there are common tasks expected to be done, > maybe even repeatedly, by Red Hat employees, which would require the > CentOS FAS account, I would want the accounts to be managed > automatically. (e.g. via RH SSO) > > No point in granting privileges to do stuff in the CentOS project to > hundreds of accounts of RH employees, when the vast majority of them > won't ever need them. > > > > (4) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "It's also great to have it in Fedora Linux first as well." > > > > > > AFAIK, the OS you are mentioning is named "Fedora" or you can use > > > "Fedora Operating System" (to distinguish from the Fedora Project that > > > has a broader portfolio than just the OS). I think the "Fedora Linux" > > > is not correct. > > > Correct me if I'm wrong > > > > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-is-a-community-fedora-linux-… > > As already pointed out by Miro Hrončok. > Thanks for showing me. > > Would you please correct the other occurrences of the "Fedora" to > "Fedora Linux" ? > > > > > Also, shouldn't be the "It's also great to have it in ..." statement > > > which is "nice-to-have" like, rather something more stressing the fact > > > that Fedora serves as an upstream for RHEL an in order to avoid future > > > regressions, it is very important to have the change accepted in the > > > Fedora first - if possible && if it makes sense. > > > The Red Hat package maintainers have to do it (the upstreaming of > > > relevant code to Fedora) anyway as a part of their job. > > > Also, how would it need to be a part of the upstream project and not > > > to be in Fedora at the same time ? I mean Fedora (at least Rawhide) > > > aims to provide the latest upstream versions possible. > > That's why I mentioned "if possible && if it makes sense". > > > This is really hard because you have plenty of software that is being > > built and configured differently for all the distributions: kernel, > > qemu-kvm, *-release, subscription-manager... > > > > I'll reword that statement and will make it more clear. My assumption > > is there would be a dialogue between the maintainer and the > > contributor on how to handle specific contributions: I'd say it's > > perfectly reasonable to ask the contributor to propose the patch > > upstream or to Fedora Linux first. > > Right, that makes sense to me. > The fact is that the maintainers would most likely maintain the same > package in Fedora too, so they will know the best, whether it is > reasonable to ask to duplicate (or move) the request to Fedora Linux. > > > > > (5) > > > Section 2 > > > Text: "If you want to contribute to CentOS Stream, you need to have an > > > account in CentOS FAS." > > > > > > Same issue as (3), same questions I ask. > > > > > > How comes it that I do not have the account and still I can contribute ? > > > The statement is most likely false. > > > > I agree this piece is slightly outdated because the sources are now > > placed on two locations: git.centos.org and > > gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream > > > > I'll update it. > > I've got a feeling the account might not be really needed (or even > useful?) for the contributor who contributes solely to the "CentOS > Stream". > But I might be wrong. > As I wrote regarding the SSO. > > > > > (6) > > > Section 3 > > > Text: "Once your account is set up, you can proceed to clone the > > > respective package repository locally." > > > > > > You can't clone the package repository locally without any account at all? > > > That would be weird for a public Git repos ... > > > > > > I'd reformulate the sentence such as "The next step you like to do is > > > to clone ... " > > > Also, the actual goal is not to clone the repo, but fork it, so let's > > > state that fact right away: > > > "The next step you like to do is to clone a package (project) from one > > > of the following repositories and fork it" > > > > That's a good point, I simplified the section. > > Again, it feels like that only applies to the other than "CentOS > Stream" projects. > Is that so ? > As I am continually discussing those - and many similar - subjects > around, there was a good suggestion to strongly separate information > relevant for the "CentOS Stream", just as the "CentOS Stream" itself > is strongly separated from the rest from the CentOS projects. > > > > > (8) > > > Section 3.1 > > > Text: "You'll be able to see 3 types of branches: > > > > > > Not all projects have all 3 types of the branches. > > > It would be better to say something like "The repository will contain > > > some of these types of branches:'' > > > followed by a bullet point list > > " > > To me, it already says that. Would this wording work? "Branches in the > > repositories follow this naming pattern:" > > Yeah, sound's good to me > > > > (9) > > > Section 3.1 > > > > > > Also, what about showing some instructions on how to do it? > > > Do the contributors from the general public know about the "centpkg" > > > tool or should they work with bare "git" ? > > > > I'll mention centpkg though it doesn't have comprehensive > > documentation out there yet. > > I understood at the very beginning, the new documentation is on the > way - which is great. > The whole page felt very ... bare, thin, lacking much information. > > Now I get why the details are not there - they weren't supposed to be > there in the first place! > So mention of a centpkg is a main tool would be great, but I no longer > expect any usage details on this page. > > > > There is: https://git.centos.org/rpms/systemd/tree/c8s > > > > The main problem with this wiki page is that it was written as > > contributor's docs for CentOS Stream 8 while it was hosted on > > git.centos.org and it was never fully updated for Stream 9 and gitlab, > > hence the confusion. And also as you can see, Stream 8 and Stream 9 > > dist-git repos look differently. > > Copying of the documentation of the old behaviour, and leaving it > there until something better comes around is IMO a bit unfortunate. > A simple message that the docs were copied that way and the docs > writing / shaping is still in progress would significantly lessen my > expectancy for this page to currently up-to-date bearing the info and > face we are trying to present to the world with CentOS stream. > > -- > > Most of the rest of my points are something I would expect to be moved > to the more detailed documentation. > > However I'd like to continue in the discussion together, if possible. > Your answers threw a brand new light on the state of the document and > it's expected future. > > > > -- > > Michal Schorm > Software Engineer > Core Services - Databases Team > Red Hat > > -- > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:48 AM Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Michal, thanks for your thorough feedback! More comments inline. > > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 5:14 PM Michal Schorm <mschorm(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > The "Contributing to CentOS Stream" webpage: > > > https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute/CentOSStream > > > is very confusing (at least to me) and lacks a lot of details. > > > > It's true the documentation is not finished yet - the CentOS Stream > > team is planning to provide comprehensive contributor's documentation, > > the wiki is really just an intro. > > > > > Here is my proposal to update / fix / enhance / clarify at least some > > > of the sections. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > (1) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "You should always open a bugzilla first" > > > > > > The link leads to the most general selection in Bugzilla. > > > Even in the "All" category, there is no "CentOS" or "CentOS Stream" product. > > > Let's clarify that the product selected should be "Red Hat Enterprise > > > Linux *" and provide more accurate link: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?classification=Red%20Hat > > > > Oh yeah, this is gonna be really handy! I just updated it to point to > > RHEL 8 and picked CentOS Stream as the version. > > > > > (2) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "You should always open a bugzilla first" > > > > > > "Should" ? > > > The process *requires* package maintainers to have the ACKed BZ > > > referenced in the commit message, otherwise it will be impossible to > > > merge it. > > > I haven't heard of any other way, so this should be changed to " *MUST* ". > > > > The reason I wrote "should" there is that it may already be a bugzilla > > opened for the MR. I can see that Rich already changed it to "must" so > > let's keep it that way because that would incentivize potential > > contributors to discuss changes first, which is what we really want. > > > > > Also, the GitLab offers features such as "Issues" and so on. Will > > > those be globally disabled to discourage the contributors to file > > > tickets in the wrong place ? > > > > Yes, issues are disabled. Bugzilla is still the official tracker. > > > > > (3) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "As with any open source projects, in the end it's up to > > > maintainers to decide which changes they want to accept and maintain, > > > so Red Hat maintainers can decline contributions for any reason." > > > > > > This sentence is heavily suggesting that only "Red Hat maintainers" > > > have the power to decide the fate of the contributions. > > > > Correct. > > > > > Does that mean that there can be no CentOS stream maintainer that is > > > not a RH employee at the same time ? > > > If yes, why don't make this clear and say it explicitly ? > > > > I'd say it's explicitly stated there already. Please suggest a better > > wording if you have one in your mind already. > > > > > Also if yes, why can't I login to CentOS project using Red Hat > > > credentials or SSO ? > > > > Because the CentOS identity provider is not utilizing Red Hat's SSO - > > I'd suggest starting a new thread for such a request because that's a > > big one. Though you can log in to GitLab via https://red.ht/GitLabSSO > > > > > If not, the sentence doesn't make much sense. > > > > > > (4) > > > Section 1 > > > Text: "It's also great to have it in Fedora Linux first as well." > > > > > > AFAIK, the OS you are mentioning is named "Fedora" or you can use > > > "Fedora Operating System" (to distinguish from the Fedora Project that > > > has a broader portfolio than just the OS). I think the "Fedora Linux" > > > is not correct. > > > Correct me if I'm wrong > > > > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-is-a-community-fedora-linux-… > > > > > Also, shouldn't be the "It's also great to have it in ..." statement > > > which is "nice-to-have" like, rather something more stressing the fact > > > that Fedora serves as an upstream for RHEL an in order to avoid future > > > regressions, it is very important to have the change accepted in the > > > Fedora first - if possible && if it makes sense. > > > The Red Hat package maintainers have to do it (the upstreaming of > > > relevant code to Fedora) anyway as a part of their job. > > > Also, how would it need to be a part of the upstream project and not > > > to be in Fedora at the same time ? I mean Fedora (at least Rawhide) > > > aims to provide the latest upstream versions possible. > > > > This is really hard because you have plenty of software that is being > > built and configured differently for all the distributions: kernel, > > qemu-kvm, *-release, subscription-manager... > > > > I'll reword that statement and will make it more clear. My assumption > > is there would be a dialogue between the maintainer and the > > contributor on how to handle specific contributions: I'd say it's > > perfectly reasonable to ask the contributor to propose the patch > > upstream or to Fedora Linux first. > > > > > (5) > > > Section 2 > > > Text: "If you want to contribute to CentOS Stream, you need to have an > > > account in CentOS FAS." > > > > > > Same issue as (3), same questions I ask. > > > > > > How comes it that I do not have the account and still I can contribute ? > > > The statement is most likely false. > > > > I agree this piece is slightly outdated because the sources are now > > placed on two locations: git.centos.org and > > gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream > > > > I'll update it. > > > > > (6) > > > Section 3 > > > Text: "Once your account is set up, you can proceed to clone the > > > respective package repository locally." > > > > > > You can't clone the package repository locally without any account at all? > > > That would be weird for a public Git repos ... > > > > > > I'd reformulate the sentence such as "The next step you like to do is > > > to clone ... " > > > Also, the actual goal is not to clone the repo, but fork it, so let's > > > state that fact right away: > > > "The next step you like to do is to clone a package (project) from one > > > of the following repositories and fork it" > > > > That's a good point, I simplified the section. > > > > > (7) > > > Section 3 > > > Text: "The package repositories are right now located in two places:" > > > > > > Two places, but four list items? :) > > > > will update > > > > > (8) > > > Section 3.1 > > > Text: "You'll be able to see 3 types of branches: > > > > > > Not all projects have all 3 types of the branches. > > > It would be better to say something like "The repository will contain > > > some of these types of branches:'' > > > followed by a bullet point list > > " > > To me, it already says that. Would this wording work? "Branches in the > > repositories follow this naming pattern:" > > > > > (9) > > > Section 3.1 > > > > > > Also, what about showing some instructions on how to do it? > > > Do the contributors from the general public know about the "centpkg" > > > tool or should they work with bare "git" ? > > > > I'll mention centpkg though it doesn't have comprehensive > > documentation out there yet. > > > > > If they should know (or even are encouraged to use) "centpkg", provide > > > the damn instructions. > > > > I don't think such language is necessary. > > > > > Otherwise, describe if the forking in the web UI is the only way and > > > how to do it. > > > > > > (10) > > > Section 4.1 > > > > > > I bet this is a confusing section, at least for new contributors. > > > > > > 1/ Let's begin with the fact that you need the fork in the first place. > > > 2/ Inside of the fork, you should create a new branch - based on the > > > branch they want to contribute to, ideally (but necessarily? ... we > > > might make a "best practice" though) named "bz12345" referencing the > > > submitted BZ ticket for easy recognition > > > 3/ commit the changes. > > > note: each commit must contain an ACKed BZ ticket in order to be > > > able to be merged to the target branch. > > > note: there will be different ACK requirements for different > > > branches in the future (e.g. Y-stream v s Z-stream) > > > 4/ Push the branch to your fork > > > 5/ create MR > > > note: when using "centpkg" as I asked above, the MR URL will be > > > created during the push > > > > > > (11) > > > Section 4.2 > > > Text: "you need to execute %prep phase to see it." > > > > > > To "see it"? More like to "retrieve it from the cache". > > > > > > (12) > > > Section 4.4 > > > > > > What the hell is this about? > > > We should be talking about a dist-git layout & workflow in this > > > section, not a RPMbuild layout (which is completely irrelevant here). > > > There are no "SOURCES" and "SPECS" directories in dist-git. that is > > > completely wrong, the whole section. > > > > There is: https://git.centos.org/rpms/systemd/tree/c8s > > > > The main problem with this wiki page is that it was written as > > contributor's docs for CentOS Stream 8 while it was hosted on > > git.centos.org and it was never fully updated for Stream 9 and gitlab, > > hence the confusion. And also as you can see, Stream 8 and Stream 9 > > dist-git repos look differently. > > > > This is where I'm stopping my replies because your language is just > > way too offensive and I am not interested in this kind of discussion. > > > > > 1/ If you want to make just a packaging change, you *likely* only need > > > to modify just the SPECfile. > > > 2/ If you want to make justa patch change, you need to add the patch > > > AND modify the SPECfile too. > > > > > > At the end, you add all the modified files, commit them, add the BZ > > > ticket to the commit message and create MR. > > > > > > (13) > > > Section 4.5 > > > Text: "4.5. After a pull request is created" > > > > > > For a reason I don't know, some people call it "pull requests" (e.g. > > > in Fedora), some people "merge requests" (e.g. in GitLab). > > > Anyway, we are working with GitLab, so use it's naming. > > > > > > So: "4.5. After a merge request is created" > > > > > > Please find all 3 occurrences of the word "pull" on the page and fix them. > > > > > > (14) > > > Section 4.5 > > > Text: "When you submit a pull request for source-git, automation will > > > pick up the change and build it " > > > > > > Does it not work for the dist-git too? > > > Why ? > > > What about mentioning the scratch-build then? ... aww hell, we are > > > back to the "centpkg" again :) > > > > > > (15) > > > Section 4.5 > > > Text: "Once your change is accepted, it will be marked with the label > > > "accepted". Our automation will create a corresponding bugzilla with > > > the patch attached and then it’s up to the RHEL maintainer to pick it > > > up, commit and build internally so that it can land back into CentOS > > > Stream" > > > > > > This is most confusing. > > > > > > Why won't a maintainer merge it into CentOS first? > > > Why would he first apply it in the most downstream place? What about > > > the "upstream first" rule? > > > > > > How can a package maintainer mark the MR as "accepted"? > > > I haven't found such an option anywhere. > > > > > > "Our automation will create a corresponding bugzilla with the patch attached" > > > So ... another BZ ? This time to ... what product ? > > > Again see (1). > > > > > > I personally actually created a MR, but none BZ has been created: > > > https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/mariadb-connector-c/-/merge_re… > > > > > > "RHEL maintainer to pick it up, commit and build internally so that it > > > can land back into CentOS Stream" > > > That sentence suggests that the RHEL is the upstream for CentOS > > > stream, but at the same time we are pushing CentOS stream to be > > > upstream for RHEL. > > > Get this straight. > > > > > > BTW on a webpage: > > > https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute#CentOS_Stream > > > the re is a clear statement: > > > "CentOS Stream is a continuously delivered distribution which is > > > upstream to the next minor version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux" > > > > > > (16) > > > Section 5 > > > Text: "it needs to be reviewed and approved by the RHEL maintainer for > > > the particular component." > > > > > > Again - so only RH employees will be able to maintain ? > > > Why don't have a CentOS FAS access already created ? > > > Why would anyone else need a CentOS FAS ? > > > > > > "maintainer for the particular component" > > > Also, I believe this is a false statement too. > > > The current permissions AFAIK allow for any RH employee with the > > > GitLab account with the "devel" role over gitlab.com/redhat space to > > > merge the MR. > > > > > > (17) > > > Section 5 > > > Text: "We are making sure behind the scenes they see your patch." > > > > > > Who is making sure? > > > the RH employees ? > > > Who are "they" > > > *the same* RH employees ? :D > > > > > > (18) > > > Section 6 > > > > > > Might help to add instructions on how to do it. > > > > > > (101) > > > > > > Is there not a single documentarist as a part of the CentOS project > > > who would read through the webpages ? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Michal Schorm > > > Software Engineer > > > Core Services - Databases Team > > > Red Hat > > > > > > -- > > > > > >

1 0

CentOS Stream 8 boot ISO works now
by Carl George 05 May '21

05 May '21

During the lifecycle of CentOS Stream 8 we've had a number of anaconda issues that have manifested the same way. When using the boot ISO, the user should have an option to use "closest mirror" as the installation source once the network is enabled. Up until now, that feature has not worked correctly, requiring users to manually type in a mirror URL, or switch to the larger DVD ISO. We've managed to resolve all the issues and now have a functional boot ISO. This would not have been possible without lots of help from the upstream anaconda team and from users who filed bugs. -- Carl George

1 0

(no subject)
by ONE 04 May '21

04 May '21

1 0

Reminder: Dojo is next week
by Rich Bowen 04 May '21

04 May '21

Reminder: We will be holding another CentOS Dojo online next week. Details and (Free!) registration are available at https://hopin.com/events/centos-dojo-online-may-2021 --Rich

2 1

opt-out feature turned on on cbs.centos.org (post-migration)
by Fabian Arrotin 04 May '21

04 May '21

Hi all, One thing we realized this morning after the cbs.centos.org migration to 8-stream is that because kojid builders are now running also 8-stream , and so with dnf/mock/yum able to understand modularity, we had a specific issue for SIG eventually building/tagging pkg that *also* exist as module/stream in AppStream repository. With default setup, when "merging" repositories (so BaseOS/AppStream and your SIG tag), it would just filter out your built pkg Example: package python3-pytest-4.6.9-1.el8.noarch is filtered out by modular filtering This pkg also exist in AppStream and so koji would try to use it from default enabled module. So we have decided to just turn the module_hotfixes = 1 boolean for yum/dnf for all el8-build/el8s-build tags, so that it would just work as before. With that option turned on, that still allows koji to consume pkgs from SIG tags. So in case you *don't* want cbs.centos.org to do that for your SIG tags, just let us know and we'll revert that for your tags (we decided to make it that an "opt-out" thing rather than "opt-in" as currently it just work as before the migration to 8-stream/koji 1.23) Kind Regards, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab

1 0

[Infra] - Planned outage : cbs.centos.org
by Fabian Arrotin 04 May '21

04 May '21

Due to a major upgrade, we'll have to take the cbs/koji setup into maintenance window. We're basically upgrading from koji 1.19 running on CentOS 7 to koji 1.23 running on CentOS 8-stream, meaning a parallel reinstallation. Migration is scheduled for """"Tuesday May 4th, 6:00 am UTC time"""". You can convert to local time with `date -d '2021-05-04 06:00 UTC' ` The expected "downtime" is estimated to ~60 minutes , time needed to - backup/restore last postgresql dump , - apply DB schema upgrade[s] - verify service and switch public IP to new kojihub. We've already taken some kojid builders instance down (and reinstalled with 8-stream already) and these will be the first ones to be attached back to kojihub, and so letting you, SIG members, be able to submit builds again asap. The remaining kojid nodes will then be reinstalled with 8-stream too, and enabled back normally on the same day, to be back at "full st[r]eam" :) Thanks for your comprehending and patience. on behalf of the Infra team, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab

1 1

04 May '21

I would like permission to use this graphic in a lightning talk describing why I see CentOS Stream as an improvement over CentOS. However, I don't see licensing information available for the graphic. Who can I contact to request that permission? https://access.redhat.com/sites/default/files/images/rhel_8_life_cycle_8_06…

4 4

Board of Director nominations: Take Two
by Rich Bowen 03 May '21

03 May '21

Hi, folks. Well, this is embarrassing. Due to a mixup in the mailing list moderation queue, we have not received any of your board of director nominations (and at least a few of you have mentioned that you sent one!) and we have to ask you to submit them again. This time, we're going to do this via a Google Form, and hopefully avoid the problem that we had last time. That form is here: https://forms.gle/U777HHDTkKgkg6Sa6 As a reminder, if you're considering nominating someone, have a look at the requirements/recommendations document, at https://www.centos.org/about/governance/director-requirements/ , where we discuss what's involved in being a director, and who's eligible. Thanks!

1 0

CentOS Stream 9 Buildsystem is publicly viewable
by Brian Stinson 02 May '21

02 May '21

Hi Folks, There’s been a lot of CentOS Stream 9 activity over the past few weeks that I’d like to share with you. First, if you haven’t noticed already, Stream 9 package sources are publicly available in GitLab: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms Second, we’ve been leading up to a very important end-of-April milestone. You can now watch package build activity in the Stream 9 build system: https://kojihub.stream.centos.org We started using these sources in the middle of March to complete our bootstrap round. That was followed almost immediately by a mass rebuild on April 12th to set the architecture baselines to POWER 9 and Z14 for the ppc64le and s390x architectures respectively. If you find your favorite package in GitLab, you can visit the ‘Merge Requests’ tab to see how the Fork/Merge Request/Build workflow works. RHEL maintainers have been using this workflow for a few weeks now as part of regular development. We’ll provide more posts this week to explain how to use the same workflow, and work with maintainers who can evaluate your changes. If your changes are merged into CentOS Stream they can directly affect RHEL 9. ## What you can do now - Sign up for a gitlab.com account: https://gitlab.com/users/sign_up - On Fedora install centpkg-0.6.3-1 from the updates/updates-testing repo - On CentOS Stream 8 install centpkg-0.6.3-1 from the epel/epel-testing repo - Pull package sources from gitlab.com - `centpkg clone -b c9s <pkgname>` gives you a dist-git checkout from gitlab - `centpkg sources` from your checkout pulls source tarballs from the lookaside cache - Download and inspect artifacts and logs for builds already in the build system - Use `centpkg mockbuild` to try local builds of your own ## Plans for upcoming work - Updates to the contributor guide which contains important requirements and guidelines for how to submit changes to CentOS Stream via Merge Request - Availability of the Composes (including install media, cloud images, container images) - Announcements later this week describing upcoming milestones, new services, and when we expect to publish to the mirrors Just a reminder: CentOS Stream 9 is still very early. We’re going to make lots of changes together, and we’re quickly bringing up services to support our long-term goal of having CentOS Stream 9 development continuously targeting the next minor release of RHEL. Currently these packages are subject to RHEL gating tests. We’ll be back with more about how that works, and what we’re doing to increase our ability to run tests directly in CentOS Stream too. Cheers! --Brian

12 22

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