[CentOS-devel] new krb5 packages brake freeIPA

On to, 02 heinä 2020, Brian Stinson wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, at 09:13, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>> On to, 02 heinä 2020, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:38 AM Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On ke, 01 heinä 2020, Brian Stinson wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, at 14:33, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>> >> >> On ke, 01 heinä 2020, lejeczek via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> >> >> >hi guys
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >latest in the repo krb5 packages - 1.18.2-2.el8 - brake
>> >> >> >freeIPA if already installed and conflict if want to install.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ># dnf install -y ipa-server-dns
>> >> >> >Last metadata expiration check: 1:21:31 ago on Wed 01 Jul
>> >> >> >2020 11:00:25 BST.
>> >> >> >Error:
>> >> >> > Problem: package
>> >> >> >ipa-server-dns-4.8.4-7.module_el8.2.0+374+0d2d74a1.noarch
>> >> >> >requires ipa-server = 4.8.4-7.module_el8.2.0+374+0d2d74a1,
>> >> >> >but none of the providers can be installed
>> >> >> >  - conflicting requests
>> >> >> >  - nothing provides krb5-kdb-version = 7.0 needed by
>> >> >> >ipa-server-4.8.4-7.module_el8.2.0+374+0d2d74a1.x86_64
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Going back to the actual issue, the only solution right now is not to
>> >> >> use CentOS 8 Stream, at least until all the required rebuilds are in
>> >> >> place.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right now CentOS 8 Stream contains exactly same IPA version as CentOS
>> >> >> 8.2.2004. So you are not gaining anything by using the stream right now.
>> >> >
>> >> >In CentOS Stream we're working on staying caught up to RHEL 8.3
>> >> >development to jumpstart the automation that will handle this going
>> >> >forward. During this process we're finding that modules are a little
>> >> >bit unwieldy.
>> >>
>> >> There are several rebases in RHEL 8.3 that require rebuild of idm module
>> >> streams: krb5, samba, libldb are the requirements that need to be
>> >> rebuilt before idm modules streams can be built. And changes in those
>> >> packages also require rebuilding SSSD.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think there is a support for a combined non-modular + modular
>> >> sidetag rebuild in CentOS (it does not exist anywhere else too), so I
>> >> would suggest taking care of the rebuilds together before pushing them
>> >> into a publicly accessible tree. Otherwise there will be breakages like
>> >> this -- which apparently is there for more than 3 weeks already.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yep.
>> >There are breakages in idm, and other packages.
>>
>> They aren't breakages, they are rebases. :)
>>
>> >But, there are two things that this entire conversation is completely missing.
>> >
>> >1 - CentOS Stream is NOT equal to RHEL 8.<next> general release, it IS
>> >equal to RHEL 8.<next> Alpha.
>> >Yes, Alpha.  Not even Beta.
>> >This whole conversation is acting like CentOS Stream should be production ready.
>> >It should not.
>> >It is to allow the general public to see what is going into the next
>> >release, problems and all.
>> >If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ...
>> >well, in my opinion, that's their problem.
>> >
>> >2 - CentOS Stream was announced that it would be ready in December 2020.
>> >That's still 5 months from now.
>> >Give the team a break.
>> >They are still setting up infrastructure, workflows, and who knows what else.
>> >
>> >For years people have gotten on CentOS's case because they are not
>> >transparent enough, and don't give people access to stuff before it's
>> >100% ready.
>> >And now when they do, you are acting like they should take the whole
>> >thing back and wait until it's completely ready.
>> >Well, completely ready is not CentOS Stream.  That's CentOS.
>>
>> +1. I only would add that transparency is still not there but in this
>> case the transparency how CentOS Stream updates happen and how to get
>> involved with that -- how to help define logic, advise of how rebuilds
>> should be done for specific package sets, etc. There is still something
>> similar to a black hole with all this process: you can see its
>> gravitational effects but cause no effect yourself to help smoothing the
>> rebuilds.
>
>I appreciate your willingness to jump in and help here. I will say that
>while we are in the first phase we (the Stream team) have a guiding
>principle that we push RHEL content in a way that RHEL maintainers
>don't yet have to notice/care/do-anything about the builds that land in
>Stream. Once Stream has exited this phase, we're in a little bit better
>position to let maintainers actually influence things here, and that's
>the ultimate goal. Until then this is our process:
>
>1.) RHEL maintainer makes a change in the RHEL dist-git branch for a release (Currently we're focusing on 8.3)
>2.) RHEL maintainer makes a RHEL build
>3.) The build makes it into a RHEL nightly compose
>4.) The Stream team periodically takes the RHEL nightly compose and pushes sources to git.centos.org
>5.) The Stream team rebuilds the packages/modules just pushed
>6.) The Stream team composes and pushes to the mirrors
>
>In order to fully jump-start our automation we need to get and *stay*
>relatively caught up with RHEL development by hand. We're getting close
>to that milestone (save for a few hiccups with modules, and other
>issues that happen during a rebuild).

Thank you for the details, they are useful.

So one specific issue that I am facing and the one manifested here is
that we currently have no support in Modularity for a sidetag rebuild of
non-modular and modular content. This means rebases like 'libkrb5
changed ABI in KDB plugin, thus ipa-server needs a rebuilt' or 'samba
changed internal ABI that ipasam module in ipa-server depends on' cannot
be handled without pushing part of the packages to the nightly compose
and then rebuilding next day against it.

This is what we see here. Capturing these kinds of changes and detecting
that they break ABI of modular packages, thus need to be accumulated for
a rebuild first would be great.

There is another, more practical issue we are witnessing:
synchronization between RHEL dist-git and CentOS Stream dist-git for
modules currently does not mangle module definitions (e.g. idm.yaml) to
refer to the correct new branch name. As result, even though the module
dist-git content is synchronized, it cannot be built as its packages'
refs are pointing to RHEL branch names.  Branch names are versioned and
change with each release, so there should be some kind of automated
branch reference replacement.

>> Note that if the rebuild process for such rebases could be automated,
>> I'd love to be able to reuse it for RHEL too. We spent six weeks
>> rebasing krb5/samba/idm:DL1 for RHEL 8.0 last year due to various
>> problems. If CentOS Stream is capable to automate the process to get it
>> down to even one week, that would be awesome to reuse elsewhere.
>
>I'm not sure if our processes would help with that particular problem,
>but I'm happy to chat about those needs sometime.

Ok. May be after summer holidays and when we all have time. ;)

-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland