Pulp: Issueshttps://pulp.plan.io/https://pulp.plan.io/favicon.ico2021-06-01T21:20:04ZPulp
Planio Pulp - Task #8848 (NEW): pulp_installer to run CI against stable brancheshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/88482021-06-01T21:20:04Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>Currently, the source molecule tests test the master branch of pulpcore and master branch of plugins, rather than the appropriate branches like pulpcore 3.11 and pulp_rpm 3.11</p>
<p>So effectively we are relying on release jobs on old branches to catch errors, at release time.</p> Pulp - Story #8846 (NEW): As a pulp_installer user, I do not need to use the latest micro release...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/88462021-06-01T21:12:19Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>Basically, this means that pulp_installer 3.14.0 (or possibly 3.13.1 / 3.13.2) will be able to install pulpcore 3.14.z .</p>
<p>The benefit for users is that they will not need to always have the latest micro version of pulp_installer.</p>
<p>And the benefit to the pulp team is that we will not need to do a pulp_installer micro release for every pulpcore micro release.</p>
<p>This is a variation of the 1 year old proposal for versions/branches in pulp_installer, and a variation of the specific micro release policy we implemented originally in <a class="issue tracker-3 status-1 priority-6 priority-default child parent" title="Story: As a user, I can download & run a version of the ansible installer that a specific version of Pulp 3 (NEW)" href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5618">#5618</a>.</p>
<p>Reference from <a class="issue tracker-3 status-1 priority-6 priority-default child parent" title="Story: As a user, I can download & run a version of the ansible installer that a specific version of Pulp 3 (NEW)" href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5618">#5618</a>:</p>
<pre><code> * Original discussion:
* [mikedep333's proposal](https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/203#issue-361269733)
* [bmbouter's couter-proposal to do micro-versioned releases](https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/203#issuecomment-577903411)
* [mikedep333's agreement/details for micro-versioned releases](https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/203#issuecomment-579450153)
</code></pre> Pulp - Backport #8835 (NEW): Backport pulp_installer FIPS fix to 3.11https://pulp.plan.io/issues/88352021-05-27T18:42:39Zironfroggy
<p>Current open ticket for FIPS issue: <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8834" class="external">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8834</a></p> Pulp - Story #8701 (NEW): As a pulp_installer user, I can use the full logic to add repos to the ...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/87012021-05-05T12:59:40Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>As mentioned in <a class="issue tracker-1 status-11 priority-6 priority-default closed" title="Issue: pulp_installer fails to install redis due to no EPEL7 (CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE)" href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7773">#7773</a> , we should refactor our logic to add repos to the system (in a robust & configurable manner) into another role like <code>pulp_repos</code>.</p>
<p>I propose the following design:</p>
<ol>
<li>This is a dependency role. pulp_common, pulp_redis, pulp_database, will all depend on it.</li>
<li>When a role like pulp_common depends on it, it passes variables like <code>__pulp_repos_epel: true</code> to denote which repos the role needs. It passes variables via roles/pulp_common/meta/main.yml : <code>dependencies:</code>
</li>
<li>If a user wants to disable the logic to add the repo (if they added it manually), they'll pass a variable like <code>pulp_repos_epel: false</code> to disable it.</li>
<li>Existing variables for configuring how we add the repos to the system, like <code>epel_release_packages</code>, should still used.</li>
</ol>
<p>This logic is found in:</p>
<ul>
<li>roles/pulp_common/tasks/ambiguously-named-repo.yml</li>
<li>roles/pulp_common/tasks/repos.yml</li>
</ul> Pulp - Task #8469 (NEW): Ensure the docker provider can be used for dev setupshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/84692021-03-29T17:38:12ZdaviddavisPulp - Story #8086 (NEW): pulp_installer should use latest version of pip to install packageshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/80862021-01-13T13:42:45Zdkliban@redhat.com
<p>The newer versions of pip include an improved dependency resolution mechanism. The pulp_installer needs a task added to upgrade pip before installing any pulp packages.</p> Pulp - Task #7811 (NEW): pulp_installer cron job runs functional tests for multiple plugins in FI...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/78112020-11-10T14:33:28Zdkliban@redhat.com
<p>The pulp_installer CI currently tests that it can deploy pulpcore and pulp_file in a FIPS environment. This cron job needs to install all plugins that support FIPS: pulp_file, pulp_rpm, pulp_container, and pulp_ansible.</p>
<p>After pulp is deployed, the functional tests for pulpcore, pulp_file, pulp_rpm, pulp_container, and pulp_ansible need to be run.</p> Pulp - Task #7724 (NEW): Improve runtime of new installation of Pulphttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/77242020-10-20T14:06:47Zbmbouterbmbouter@redhat.com
<p>The request to make the installer go faster</p>
<pre><code>A tower standalone install with automation hub takes about ~40 mins. Which is almost more than double of a normal
Tower install. It seems the most of the time we spent is on pulp-common role. Is there anything we are planning to do
in terms of making it little faster (not running same tasks many time, which pulp common role does) ?
</code></pre> Pulp - Story #7689 (NEW): As a user I want my socket to be backed up by a systemd implementationhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/76892020-10-12T13:25:04Zspredzy
<p>As a user I want my socket to be backed up by a systemd implementation.</p>
<p>Under its current form, the installer allows one to use unix domain socket, but not to configure them with a native systemd implementation. This is a RFE for this.</p> Pulp - Task #7668 (NEW): remove pid files from the systemd service fileshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/76682020-10-07T17:05:32Zdkliban@redhat.com
<p>Systemd does not need explicitly defined pid files to keep track of the services. We should make a change the systemd service files similar to the change here: <a href="https://github.com/theforeman/puppet-pulpcore/commit/b3b7c133c513dd2c30b00a81e64b2bb33ca92397" class="external">https://github.com/theforeman/puppet-pulpcore/commit/b3b7c133c513dd2c30b00a81e64b2bb33ca92397</a></p> Pulp - Task #7642 (NEW): Update pulp_installer's list of supported Fedora releaseshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/76422020-10-01T18:18:58Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>Fedora 32 is supported; pulplift CI tests it. Fedora 30 will probably be dropped in the task that blocks this.</p>
<p>Note that this list is in roles/*/meta/main.yml</p> Pulp - Task #7638 (NEW): Fix ansible_python_interpreter issues in pulp_installerhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/76382020-10-01T18:03:57Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>There are 3 minor / potential issues pertaining to this.</p> Pulp - Task #7575 (NEW): pulp_installer's SELinux support should handle folder paths being changedhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/75752020-09-25T21:09:08Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>pulp_install_dir, pulp_user_home, etc are currently baked into pulpcore-selinux.</p>
<p>pulp_installer should support accommodating this, such as by replacing the .fc file from pulpcore-selinux, or running label database commands.</p> Pulp - Task #7313 (POST): The installer should be tested as a collectionhttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/73132020-08-12T09:53:56Zmdellweg
<p>We distribute the installer roles as a collection, and stuff in an ansible collection behaves different than outside, we need to test them as part of a collection.</p> Pulp - Story #6797 (ASSIGNED): [epic] As a user, I can consume all the plugin prereq roles in the...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/67972020-05-21T18:45:22Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>pulp_rpm_prerequisites exists because the installer has had a plugin neutral policy.</p>
<p>This policy was for very long misunderstood: It's not about avoiding favoritism to any plugins, it's about not tying the installer (which is tied to pulpcore releases) to plugin releases. So that say pulpcore 3.3 logic would be in pulp_installer 3.3 release, and so that pulp_cardboardbox 0.7 logic would be in the pulp_cardboardbox_prerequisites 0.7 role.</p>
<p>The team now agrees that this policy is counter-productive because:</p>
<ol>
<li>Having a role in a separate repo (not part of the pulp_installer collection) is extra work for developers, and for users.</li>
<li>The only plugin that currently needs a prereq role, pulp_rpm, has version numbers and releases that correspond to pulpcore releases. pulp_rpm 3.3.z needs pulpcore 3.3.z, etc. So the pulp_rpm specific installation logic can be safely bundled in pulp_installer 99% of the time.</li>
</ol>