Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to decide on how this moves ahead.
I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt) virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are released or land in centos extras)
The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream and early QA for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create these 2 tags.
See below message to centos-devel@ and http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-lat... for background
----- Forwarded message from Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org -----
I could potentially build both upcoming RHEL and Fedora rpms for Virt.
We could have koji tag separation like:
virt7-docker-rhel-* virt7-docker-fedora-*
and maybe then deprecate the virt7-docker-common-* in favor of the two above?? That could ensure clear separation between the 2 versions.
Enabling both rhel and fedora repos and then upgrading docker from the fedora repo with a docker-latest pre-installed can and will give you nightmares, but as a close friend always says, "We'll cross that bridge..."
wdyt?
Thanks,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to decide on how this moves ahead.
I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt) virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are released or land in centos extras)
The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream and early QA for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create these 2 tags.
See below message to centos-devel@ and http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-lat... for background
I think having the RHEL version makes sense; but I'm not sure exactly what we gain from having a version labelled "fedora". If someone wanted the Fedora docker, why wouldn't they just install Fedora? And if in this case "Fedora" really just stands for "Recently stable docker", then we should probably just come up with another name for it that describes it better (even if in the end it turns out to be a straight re-building of the Fedora RPM).
-George
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:39 AM, George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to decide on how this moves ahead.
I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt) virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are released or land in centos extras)
The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream and early QA for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create these 2 tags.
See below message to centos-devel@ and http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-lat... for background
I think having the RHEL version makes sense; but I'm not sure exactly what we gain from having a version labelled "fedora". If someone wanted the Fedora docker, why wouldn't they just install Fedora? And if in this case "Fedora" really just stands for "Recently stable docker", then we should probably just come up with another name for it that describes it better (even if in the end it turns out to be a straight re-building of the Fedora RPM).
I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense churn of that operating system.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:39 AM, George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar lsm5@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to decide on how this moves ahead.
I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt) virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are released or land in centos extras)
The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream and early QA for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create these 2 tags.
See below message to centos-devel@ and http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-lat... for background
I think having the RHEL version makes sense; but I'm not sure exactly what we gain from having a version labelled "fedora". If someone wanted the Fedora docker, why wouldn't they just install Fedora? And if in this case "Fedora" really just stands for "Recently stable docker", then we should probably just come up with another name for it that describes it better (even if in the end it turns out to be a straight re-building of the Fedora RPM).
I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense churn of that operating system.
Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh.
My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the Fedora package).
-George
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:26 AM, George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense churn of that operating system.
Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh.
My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the Fedora package).
I thinki it would get confusing fast. Let the '%changelog' in the .spec file show the Fedora history, RPM 'release' reflect that it's a more recent version and published by a CentOS SIG.
-
George Dunlap -
Lokesh Mandvekar -
Nico Kadel-Garcia