[CentOS-devel] CERN pre-dojo meeting topic : Sig request for sig specific git
arrfab at centos.org
Fri Oct 27 06:30:03 UTC 2017
On 26/10/17 22:11, Brian Stinson wrote:
> On Oct 24 18:08, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:46:28PM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:
>>>> sigs would like to use centpkg / lookaside, build direct through git to koji
>>>> authentication requirements to accounts.centos.org
>>>> Fabian to evaluate git solutions and report back to sig chairs.
>>>> mrunge has volunteered to be the "guinea pig" of the new system
>>>> Waiting for comments/input/feedback on those points
>> Thank you for kicking this off!
>> Storing specs + upstream sources somewhere would solve my primary
>> concern with creating some more reproducible builds. Even in a
>> small team, it seems scary to upload "somehow" created srpms to get
>> them built in cbs.
>>> From our discussion, I remember that with the "lookaside cache", it
>>> should be possible for a "drive-by" contributor to submit a change
>>> which included a new tarball, by submitting a pull request that had
>>> the proper hash; I could then download the tarball from the upstream
>>> website myself, verify the hash, and upload it to the lookaside cache
>>> when merging the PR.
>> Yes, I remember we discussed it briefly, on how to enable drive-by
>> contributions or how to lower the barrier for contributors.
>> I'd be fine with patches/pull-requests/whatever for spec files. I'd try
>> to pull down sources myself anyways.
>> Ideally, any solution would be supported by a central tool, comparable to
>> fedpkg for fedora. I know there is centpkg, but I'm currently unsure how
>> git and source upload is handled there.
> Centpkg currently only deals with source RPMs. This is blocked on some
> sort of git solution with proper credentialing such that the SIG members
> can do basic operations. If such a thing came up, centpkg could easily
> become a thing again, and could be the right "central tool" for the job.
I haven't tested LFS myself, but as Gitea (that I deployed as a PoC, so
that Matthias could play with it) supports that, I was wondering if that
couldn't be a simple solution to store blobs/tarballs, without a need to
write a kind of "lookaside cache" solution that would have to do ACL
verification. AFAICS, LFS through git does that automatically through
The client side would need to be worked on though : git-lfs seems to
exist in recent Fedora, but nothing in Epel7.
I haven't tried a rebuild, as from a quick look in the .spec, it would
need quite some packages to be available , including higher git (or can
we force SCLo for this ?)
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the CentOS-devel