On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:26 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote: > > On 13/01/2021 18:26, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In Cloud SIG, we are planning adoption to CentOS 8 Stream. I'd like to > > clarify what will be the workflow and get some info about open questions > > and issues before starting to request stuff. > > > > IIUC, the intended workflow to build, ship and consume packages for c8s > > should be pretty similar to the current one: > > > > Build: > > 1. Request new tags which will use C8S buildroot, something like > > cloud8s-openstack-victoria-*. > > 2. Build from srpm on those new tags. > > Nothing should change with actual process so yes, requesting tags > through https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issues would still be the way to go > > > > > > Ship: > > 3. Tagging into cloud8s-openstack-victoria-testing will trigger > > automatically shipping a package under > > > https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/ > > < > https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/ > > > > (note 8-stream in url). > > 4. Tagging into cloud8s-openstack-victoria-release will trigger > > automatically shipping a package under > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/ > > <http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/cloud/x86_64/openstack-victoria/> > > (note 8-stream in url) > > Yes, and it's already working : Storage SIG already asked for 8s tags > for Gluster 9 > (https://cbs.centos.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=tag&terms=storage8s*) > and > they already tagged to -testing so it landed automatically on > https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8-stream/storage/ > > The only thing I see is that disttag is still .el8 and maybe (?) should > be .el8s ? > Thomas, opinion on this ? ^ > > In our case we plan to crosstag builds from c8 to c8s (and probably viceversa) so I'd prefer to have the same disttag unless there are other reasons or enforcement to use a different one. > > > > Consume: > > 5. Users in a C8S box, install the release rpm from extras > > centos-release-openstack-victoria and repos are configured to use from > > 8-stream URLs. > > > > Please confirm this is the intended workflow or if there is any change. > > I assume we can maintain separated repos for C8 and C8S with different > > or same (cross-tagged) packages in the SIG. > > > > Now, some questions: > > > > - The release RPMs will be the same for C8 and C8S (as it is currently) > > or can be different?, we may have a new release only for C8S and not for > > C8 so we may need different release rpms. > > - Do we need to adjust somehow the .repo to point to the right URLs in > > C8 or C8S (i thing $releasever points to 8 in centos-stream). > > - Is the infra already ready to build and push packages for C8S or are > > there open issues that we should be aware of?, is the automated push and > > ship based on tagging/untagging ready for C8S builds? > > - Is there any change in naming convention for tags, repos, etc... (i > > assumed <signame>8s- instead of <signame>8- ). > > - Should we use a different disttag for C8S buildroots?, (I'd prefer to > > stay with regular .el8). > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alfredo > > > > This is the part where we should have answer from the Stream team about > the $releasever "issue". > So far, a deployed 8-stream is still itself believing that it's a '8' > node (from python/dnf PoV). > Base CentOS Stream .repo files were changed with "?release=$stream" for > mirrorlist, while there is a /etc/yum/vars/stream variable defining it > as "8-stream" so it works. > Is that a good or bad thing ? well, the advantage is that if you deploy > Stream and just "dnf install epel-release" you'll get epel content from > 8 working directly but from (example) ansible PoV it still thinks that > Stream is a 8 deployed node ... I guess there are pros and cons , > depending on how you look at the situation :) > > Assuming (but not authoritative so I'll let Stream team comment on this) > that it continues to work with releasever being evaluated as '8', the > only change that you'd require for your SIG to be consuming pkgs from > 8-stream and not 8 would be to adopt the same mechanism (using > ?release=$stream instead of ?release=$releasever) for your .repo files > (so yes, that would probably mean also a different > centos-release-<sig>-<project> pkg for c8 / c8s branches (and so landing > in extras in both but not stepping on other toes) > > Thanks for the info Alfredo > > -- > Fabian Arrotin > The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org > gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | twitter: @arrfab > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20210114/c5eb2778/attachment-0005.html>