Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 extras for alternative arches and Koji workflow.

On 08/05/17 13:44, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com mailto:sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@centos.org
<mailto:arrfab@centos.org>> wrote:

    On 15/03/17 16:58, Karanbir Singh wrote:
    > On 15/03/17 09:28, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
    >
    >> So my understanding is that the problem relies on the fact that there
    >> isn't even a policy around Extras repository now. So it's up to the
    >> people allowed to build/sign/push to know what they'll add in Extras,
    >> and only in the arches they care about.
    >
    > https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
    <https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories> has a
    > definition for the Extras repos. on C7 it should include what is
    > upstream in the Extras/ repos ( provided we are able to build it ), and
    > other things that are needed sometimes to build content in base / updates.
    >
    > In addition to this, Extras should contain all centos-release-* files
    > from the SIG's.
    >
    > The only other content that should make it into Extras should be content
    > vetted by the core sig, considered fundamental to user experience or
    > tooling for user experience. ie. a fairly high barrier to entry.
    >
    > Does that give us enough policy wording for Extras ? Do we have
    > exceptions we need to work through ?
    >

    Sounds good. So with that definition in mind, how can we be sure
    that
    Extras is then built/distributed in parallel for all arches, so that
    then it can be safely enabled within CBS ?

    --
    Fabian Arrotin
    The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
    gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab


    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org>
    https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
    <https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel>



Adding here notes I sent in a different thread, for reference.
I'm facing some discrepancies in repositories structure for ppc64le.

In x86_64 qemu-kvm-ev is shipped within 
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/virt/x86_64/kvm-common/
<http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/virt/x86_64/kvm-common/>
which is the path I was expecting. Now, looking at ppc64le I see it
shipped within:
http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/extras/ppc64le/Packages/
<http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/extras/ppc64le/Packages/>
and being extras enabled by default it overrides qemu-kvm shipped by
core os.
Can we at least replicate the same structure between 
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7
<http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7> and http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7
<http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7> ?

Any update?

have you tried to reach out to the SIG's responsible for the content ?

next, I see cockpit available for x86_64 in
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/extras/x86_64/Packages/
<http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/extras/x86_64/Packages/>
but it's missing in 
http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/extras/ppc64le/Packages/
<http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/extras/ppc64le/Packages/>

I see cockpit in fedora
ppc64le: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=869569 <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=869569>
so it should be possible to get it on centos as well.
Can you please build it?

Any update?

we build parts of cockpit as a part of the atomic stack - since thats not on PPC, i think you might need to setup a suiteable target and maintain that yourself - the atomic stack isnt going to be able to do this.

regards