[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 extras for alternative arches and Koji workflow.
sbonazzo at redhat.com
Thu May 18 15:52:30 UTC 2017
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:
> On 18/05/17 00:49, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > On 08/05/17 13:44, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo at redhat.com
> >> <mailto:sbonazzo at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org
> >> <mailto: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
> >> <https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories> has
> >> > definition for the Extras repos. on C7 it should include what
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > Does that give us enough policy wording for Extras ? Do we
> >> > 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
> >> 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 <mailto:CentOS-devel at 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/
> >> <http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7> ?
> >> Any update?
> > have you tried to reach out to the SIG's responsible for the content ?
> That's interesting, as for ppc64/ppc64le for AltArch SIG, you're the one
> responsible KB for those arches (from what I see on
> So I guess that yes, Sandro tried to reach out and contact you for that
> question :-)
> When it was discussed at the CBS meeting, (but lot of involved people
> weren't there, it was clearly shown that we lack a process for Extras,
> and ensuring then than all Alt Arches are following the authoritative
> x86_64 distro.
> That was becoming a problem too as in fact, nothing from Extras is built
> on cbs, but rather on different builders and different processes (so
> more or less like @core distro)
> The issue that people were seeing was that they wanted to have Extras
> enabled within CBS, but due to lack of consistency in Extras, some
> builds could fail just because one package is missing from Extras for an
> arch, while being available for x86_64.
> Does that summarize the issue SIGs members reported in #centos-devel but
> also earlier on this list ?
I think it's mostly it. Thanks for summarizing.
> Fabian Arrotin
> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
> gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS-devel