Pulp: Issueshttps://pulp.plan.io/https://pulp.plan.io/favicon.ico2021-07-02T18:07:29ZPulp
Planio Pulp - Task #9005 (NEW): pulp_installer's molecule CI should not always connect as roothttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/90052021-07-02T18:07:29Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>This seems to be a product of, or the default configuration of, the docker plugin for molecule. (molecule uses <code>docker exec</code> to talk to the container, not SSH.)</p>
<p>We should look into performance options as we solve this. Even if it means eliminating/weakening SSH encryption on the CI environment / molecule containers.</p> 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 #8702 (NEW): As a user, the example-use playbook is not cluttered with object storag...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/87022021-05-05T13:31:24Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>We should move the object storage checks from the the example-use playbook to the pulp_common role to solve this.</p>
<p>It will provide a better user experience. (Making the example playbook as small as possible.)</p>
<p>It will also enforce the checks for users that do not use the example-use playbook.</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/blob/master/playbooks/example-use/playbook.yml" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/blob/master/playbooks/example-use/playbook.yml</a></p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/blob/master/roles/pulp_common/tasks/main.yml#L16" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/blob/master/roles/pulp_common/tasks/main.yml#L16</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 - Story #8491 (NEW): As a user I only download needed collections dependencieshttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/84912021-03-31T20:31:18Zfao89
<p>As some modules are leaving ansible core to collections, we need to declare collections as dependencies so ansible-galaxy can install them.</p>
<p>pulp_installer provides a set of roles, and the user may not use all the roles, pulp_database role needs community.postgresql for example.</p>
<p>How can we deal with these "conditional dependencies"?
"if the user gets pulp_dabase role install community.postgresql else don't install it"</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/567" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/567</a></p> 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 #7247 (NEW): As a pulp_installer developer-user, the pulp_rpm signing service will b...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/72472020-07-30T19:56:47Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>The current way pulp_rpm's signing service needs to be installed is a temporary.</p>
<p>So let's add the current ansible-based solution I already developed. I developed it as part of the selinux el8 dev env, and it's in the pulp_devel (not meant for end users.)</p> Pulp - Story #7043 (ASSIGNED): As a user, I have pulp_installer compile and install the pulpcore-...https://pulp.plan.io/issues/70432020-06-24T15:52:24Zdkliban@redhat.com
<a name="Overview"></a>
<h2 >Overview<a href="#Overview" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>On Red Hat systems, Pulp installer needs to clone pulpcore-selinux repository[0], compile the policy inside of it, and install the policy, label all the ports used by pulp services[1].</p>
<p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux</a>
[1] <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux#labeling-pulpcore_port" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux#labeling-pulpcore_port</a></p>
<a name="File-Path-RequirementsDetails"></a>
<h2 >File Path Requirements/Details<a href="#File-Path-RequirementsDetails" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>The SELinux policy is built assuming default file paths. For example things like /var/lib/pulp, etc. Those defaults are in the policy's ".fc" file <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux/blob/master/pulpcore.fc" class="external">here</a>.</p>
<p>On producton systems when these paths are changed the compiled policy will need to generate a correct .fc file to use when compiling the policy.</p>
<p>On dev systems, a new .fc file will need to be generated as well for the dev environment.</p>
<p>Alternatively, we can call commands/modules to update the label database with these changed paths.</p>
<a name="install-from-RPM-mode"></a>
<h2 >install-from-RPM mode<a href="#install-from-RPM-mode" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>Currently not needed (Dennis & Mike), the policies get installed (pre-compiled) via pulpcore-selinux RPM package, which the installer defaults to installing.</p>
<p>Because /usr/bin/rq and /usr/bin/gunicorn are generic, this mode will require wrapper scripts like Katello creates. If we are to support this mode at all (usually policies are in a separate RPM package.)</p>
<a name="Which-version-of-pulpcore-selinux-gets-installed"></a>
<h2 >Which version of pulpcore-selinux gets installed?<a href="#Which-version-of-pulpcore-selinux-gets-installed" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>Currently the "master" branch. Alternatives, like tagged releases, are TBD.</p>
<a name="How-to-test-branches-of-pulpcore-selinux"></a>
<h2 >How to test branches of pulpcore-selinux?<a href="#How-to-test-branches-of-pulpcore-selinux" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>The git repo and branch ("master") are configurable via 2 private variables, but there is no "Required PR" support because it is a lot of work and may not pay off. They can be overriden via <code>__pulp_selinux_repo</code> and <code>__pulp_selinux_version.</code> We should set these in molecule vars files for CI when needed.</p>
<a name="Provide-support-for-disabling-SELinux-in-the-installer"></a>
<h2 >Provide support for disabling SELinux in the installer?<a href="#Provide-support-for-disabling-SELinux-in-the-installer" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>This is worth considering in case an incompatible plugin will be installed. However, universally disabling SELinux is outside of of the scope of the installer now.</p>
<a name="Installing-the-1-package-for-the-ports-should-be-in-pulp_api-amp-pulp_content-roles"></a>
<h2 >Installing the 1 package for the ports should be in pulp_api & pulp_content roles.<a href="#Installing-the-1-package-for-the-ports-should-be-in-pulp_api-amp-pulp_content-roles" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>Doing so would be ideal, but our current implementation of installing it in pulp_common is good enough. (Dennis & Mike)</p>
<a name="Also-install-the-policy-for-the-other-selinux-modes-mls-strict-amp-targeted-not-just-the-current-one"></a>
<h2 >Also install the policy for the other selinux modes (mls, strict & targeted), not just the current one.<a href="#Also-install-the-policy-for-the-other-selinux-modes-mls-strict-amp-targeted-not-just-the-current-one" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>Current is good enough, we do only targeted for Pulp 2. (Dennis & Mike)</p>
<a name="Support-for-dev-mode-installs-with-pulp-source-installed-in-editable-mode"></a>
<h2 >Support for dev mode installs, with pulp source installed in editable mode?<a href="#Support-for-dev-mode-installs-with-pulp-source-installed-in-editable-mode" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h2>
<p>Tracked via: <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/97" class="external">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/97</a></p> Pulp - Story #6688 (NEW): pulp_installer: preflight check and system-wide packages are incompatiblehttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/66882020-05-08T14:40:15Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>Part of the pre-flight check does not understand system-wide packages, but another part is still affected by them.</p>
<p>This leads to false positives (enforcements) in addition to false negatives in the preflight check.</p>
<p>We no longer need system-wide packages, so we should remove support for it, and migrate user installs off of it, as safely as possible.</p> Pulp - Task #6306 (ASSIGNED): Request EPEL8 versions of packages in the pulp-devel rolehttps://pulp.plan.io/issues/63062020-03-06T21:22:23Zmdepaulo@redhat.com
<p>This PR has to do some workarounds for EL8 support, because the packages were not in EPEL8 yet:
<a href="https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp/pull/243/files#" class="external">https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp/pull/243/files#</a></p>
<p>Ignoring some helpful developing tools packages:
jnettop
fd-find
fzf</p>
<p>and Installing F28 (Python 3.6) versions of a package we needt:
python3-virtualenvwrapper</p>
<p>and its deps:
python3-virtualenv-clone
python3-stevedore</p>
<p>We should request that they be packaged for EPEL8.
See "## Consumer request for packages"
<a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/KXMMLYSAXAVHDKFFBVEFYYZHPJBWXOQQ/" class="external">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/KXMMLYSAXAVHDKFFBVEFYYZHPJBWXOQQ/</a></p>
<p>And then added to the list of packages to install as normal.</p>