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

Sandro Bonazzola sbonazzo at redhat.com
Mon May 8 12:44:00 UTC 2017


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

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at 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 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 at centos.org
>> 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/
> 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/
> 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 and http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7 ?
>

Any update?


>
> next, I see cockpit available for x86_64 in
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/extras/x86_64/Packages/
> but it's missing in
> http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/extras/ppc64le/Packages/
>
> I see cockpit in fedora ppc64le: https://koji.fedorapr
> oject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=869569
> so it should be possible to get it on centos as well.
> Can you please build it?
>
>
Any update?



>
> --
> Sandro Bonazzola
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at redhat.com
>



-- 

SANDRO BONAZZOLA

ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D

Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://red.ht/sig>
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20170508/4a9c88de/attachment.html>


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list