Pulp

Should Pulp continue to package its own SELinux policies, or does Fedora package all SELinux policies from all packages together into a single RPM?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/Schedule

rbarlow wrote:

Should Pulp continue to package its own SELinux policies, or does Fedora package all SELinux policies from all packages together into a single RPM?

I learned from maxamillion that it is not a requirement for Pulp's SELinux policies to be included in Fedora's core SELinux package, though that would be a good long term goal for us. Due to time constraints, we will not attempt to do this in Fedora 24.

Things are coming along smoothly in this work. I believe there are only a few outstanding issues and tasks that need to be taken care of:

• We need BZ#1285135 to be fixed in Fedora Rawhide. The maintainer seems to be absent, so I have filed BZ#1287148 so that I can take over as package maintainer. At this point it does seem that neither of the maintainers are going to respond, so I expect that I will be able to file the formal request to take over this package on Tuesday of next week. Therefore, I do not expect this to be a problem for Pulp getting into Fedora 24.
• Pulp needs to tag a beta release for both Pulp and pulp_docker so that the package review has a beta to build. Having betas for the other plugins would be nice to have but not required.
• Of course, we need to write spec files for whichever repos have betas ready, and file Fedora package review tickets. I do not expect this to be difficult but there will be a package review for each plugin in addition to the platform. For the purposes of our January timeline, it is only necessary to get pulp and pulp_docker accepted, so the others are "nice to have" and can reasonably be added at a later date if we are in a crunch.
• bmbouter is working with other Fedora packagers to get a newer version of python-celery and python-kombu in Fedora. Additionally, he is working with upstream to fix a bug that breaks disconnect support with qpidd. If Fedora's infrastructure team uses RabbitMQ, this effort will not affect them but this work would be good to get done nonetheless. Brian, do you have links to any upstream issues or BZs that you can add to this ticket?
• We should test Pulp with RabbitMQ, since we may recommend that Fedora consider it for a message broker given the qpidd instabilities that we've experienced (particularly in Fedora!). This one is taking a back seat to many of our other tasks so we may not get to it in time for the initial builds, but getting to it earlier in 2016 would be ideal.

The reconnect support of python-kombu being broken or not is not yet know. smyers is testing that currently to investigate. If it is broken an upstream bug will be filed and should be linked to here.

Separate from that, there is a user experience issue in upstream kombu where tracebacks are shown on a normal stop. That supposedly has gone away with 3.0.32 (current upstream release), so we're waiting to file a bug once we know if it is still an issue. smyers is also investigating that.

I have become an admin on the python-mongoengine package, so we now have the ability to resolve that issue ourselves.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-mongoengine/

Package request for the platform: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297274

Package request for pulp_docker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297622

Package request for Crane: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297629