[CentOS-devel] Missing -devel packages

On 8/12/20 2:01 PM, Leon Fauster via CentOS-devel wrote:
> Am 12.08.20 um 16:55 schrieb Johnny Hughes:
>> On 8/11/20 12:10 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:57 AM Troy Dawson <tdawson at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:39 AM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/10/20 3:41 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:29 PM Orion Poplawski <orion at nwra.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there anything I can do to help out with missing -devel
>>>>>>> packages in CentOS
>>>>>>> 8?  I'm waiting for a number of them, e.g.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=17401
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Orion,
>>>>>> It helps if it is linked to this ticket.
>>>>>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16492
>>>>>> Although nothing has happened there for 5 months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, there is two definitions of "missing -devel packages"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are the ones that have never shown up anywhere  (I'm still
>>>>>> waiting on 4 I believe)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there are the ones that originally showed up, and we were
>>>>>> able to build from them in EPEL8, but then when RHEL 8.2 came along,
>>>>>> the EPEL8 packages are still the old ones from RHEL 8.1.
>>>>>> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9580
>>>>>
>>>>> And while we would love to just publish these .. we can not.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are competing goals here.  Bit for bit like RHEL .. RHEL does
>>>>> not
>>>>> have the SRPMS, we should not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone wants the SRPMS .. so they want us to like RHEL .. except when
>>>>> they don't.  All our build system and where we pull info assumes we
>>>>> need
>>>>> to be the same.  Introducing things were we are not is HARD ..
>>>>> especially in el8 as we HAVE to use koji and mbox and pungi to build.
>>>>> Introducing differences into compose configurations for pungi for
>>>>> releases is HARD .. it has follow on impacts .. and we need a
>>>>> system in
>>>>> place to make it continue to work when we get updated compose files in
>>>>> the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have people working on this, but it is just not a priority compared
>>>>> to getting things released on time and builds working properly.  It is
>>>>> not just a simple .. push a couple packages somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You already have them published, that work is done.
>>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/Devel/x86_64/os/Packages/
>>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8.2.2004/Devel/x86_64/os/Packages/
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't say it in the ticket, but from conversations the rsync area
>>>> that was setup for EPEL8 to sync that over, something happened and
>>>> they can't sync anymore.
>>>> I don't know the details.  It's possible that the syncing is already
>>>> fixed, and they just need to restart and/or update their script.
>>>>
>>>> Troy
>>>
>>> Turns out the syncing was fixed, but the ticket not closed.
>>> Sorry for all the noise.
>>> If I had just tried to rebuild my package again, I would have seen it
>>> was fixed.
>>>
>>> Troy
>>
>> Thanks Troy .. as i said, we did get SOME packages added and they SHOULD
>> stay fixed.
>>
>> But some -devel packages are also not fixed, as there are lots of things
>> that need to be modified in the automation to keep them fixed.
> 
> 
> I am not so deep in this "koji mbox pungi" infra thing but like other
> devel packages, they are also the output of the build process and
> survive the repo build, so why not letting them also there where they
> already are? I can not believe that this is hardcoded in "koji mbox
> pungi" :-)?
> 
> Ok, the argument is - RHEL is ... and CentOS will be also so. Okay.
> (Side note does Upstream have a rhelplus like centosplus repo? So,
> no justification to have not an full populated Devel repo?)
> 
> While the packages are _actively_ deleted (process step before repo
> build). Why not substitute "rm $1" with "mv -t Devel $1".
> An automatic process and no need to request packages, like here:
> 
> https://bugs.centos.org/view_all_set.php?sort_add=category_id&dir_add=DESC&type=2
> 
> 
> The most requests for such devel packages are done because people are
> building others packages that depend on (BuildRequires) also CentOS need
> them. Well, they are devel rpms right. But what I wanted to say is they
> are mostly not requested to get installed for ever and maybe produce bug
> reports etc. (exactly this case is not supported, claimed by upstream).
> 
> BTW, you already do the right thing in putting a warning into the
> reponame/file.
> 
> Building the SRPM is straight forward and the people have then the
> missing devel packages. So why this hassle?

> 
> As I said, I do not know the internal process. Its just my mental model
> that gets here depicted from a point of view outside of the project.

If I was the decider .. any -devel package that comes out would signed
and released .. I am not the decider.

I don't decide what gets in RHEL -devel files .. nor do i decide what
gets released from pungi .. but it matches what is released in RHEL with
approved additional -devel files.

That is just how it is.

We are working on a

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20200813/be49c7c5/attachment.sig>