Project

Profile

Help

Task #4414

Add pulpcore, pulpcore-plugin, and pulp_file to Fedora 30

Added by bmbouter 10 months ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Status:
ASSIGNED
Priority:
Normal
Category:
-
Sprint/Milestone:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

49%

Platform Release:
Blocks Release:
Backwards Incompatible:
No
Groomed:
No
Sprint Candidate:
No
Tags:
QA Contact:
Complexity:
Smash Test:
Verified:
No
Verification Required:
No
Sprint:

Description

1. make the 3 spec files using pyp2rpm
2. Submit them to Fedora https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/index.html

This would be for pulp_file specifically and pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin as dependencies of pulp_file.


Subtasks

Task #4605: Get all 3 RPMs packages & their dependencies to buildASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4606: Resolving any issues with RPM-installing the 3 RPMs & their dependenciesASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4607: Make current set of RPMs & their packaging availableASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4608: Test the ability of Pulp to function from RPMsNEW

Actions
Task #4609: Adapt ansible-pulp for the scenario of using the RPMsASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4610: Fix the broken auto-generated descriptions of packagesNEWmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4611: Eliminate any unneeded build & test dependencies of pulpASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4612: Resolve any other blatant issues that would prevent the RPMs from being accepted by FedoraNEW

Actions
Task #4613: Figure out & implement process for upgrading RPMsNEW

Actions
Task #4614: Submit packages to Fedora and work through their process to get them accepted as new packagesNEW

Actions
Task #4616: Fix build on Fedora 31ASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4618: Update Pulp RPMs to RC1ASSIGNEDmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions
Task #4643: Address general Fedora 30 compatibility issuesCLOSED - CURRENTRELEASEmdepaulo@redhat.com

Actions

History

#1 Updated by rchan 9 months ago

This issue is in assigned...will update as soon as new account created/updated.

#2 Updated by amacdona@redhat.com 9 months ago

  • Status changed from NEW to ASSIGNED

#3 Updated by mdepaulo@redhat.com 9 months ago

  • Assignee set to mdepaulo@redhat.com

#4 Updated by mdepaulo@redhat.com 9 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#5 Updated by mdepaulo@redhat.com 9 months ago

Notes from the Pulp team meeting on this:

Background info

Agreed at PulpCon not to build RPMs and have QE test them as officially supported method of Pulp 3 delivery. Did not have urgent internal driver & didn't want to spend time testing what we thought would be required ahead of knowing what katello or Ansible Galaxy stakeholders required just due to past requirements.

RPMs
- Pulp 2 dropped in fedora dropped (QE & dev more time to focus on current priorities)
- f30 dropped mongo dependency, Pulp 2 dropped ahead of this
- Pulp 3 internal ci running on f29 now
- QE main goal - testing for stakeholders with urgent/near term needs
- source install is what is currently tested
- PyPI - main focus for now - it can be added to our CI - easily out of sync
- pulp smash functional & unit tests run during publish process before pushing new asset to PyPI
- Galaxy - reuse PyPI and repackage into containers
- Katello want containers
- Install from source is current QE testing
- dev goal - CI
- stay platform agnostic

Fedora
Has it's own build process
- Can lag behind
Auto rebuild

This is unofficial upstream Pulp/downstream Fedora
- how do we communicate availability
- db migrations
- Does ansible scripts handle upgrade?

Work involved:
- Packaging the several dependencies of Pulp3 in Fedora before packaging Pulp & the specified plugins
- Figuring out any scriptlets for upgrades, including Ansible
- Trying to get it done in time for the Fedora 30 release schedule

Conclusion
RPMs are still not an officially supported upstream deliverable. No ask of upstream Pulp to officially support or test them.
RPM specific issues will be likewise not be prioritized. Pulp Developers (Mike) will spend time on this because it does drive engaged user uptake which will provide more feedback to improve quality.

#6 Updated by mdepaulo@redhat.com 8 months ago

We just held another meeting (myself, bmbouter, asmacdo, pcreech & kersom).

We agreed that:
1. My work on the Summit prep will continue to be higher priority than this.
2. I will reach out to Neal Gompa soon to see if the RPM packaging is what he wants; particularly with respect to #3.
3. I will continue to adapt ansible-pulp for the RPM scenario (currently it has the PyPI & source install scenarios.)
4. It will not be that much work to do #3.
5. Creating an RPM like "pulp" with fixed RPM scriptlet logic is not a huge amount of work, but undesirable because of duplicate effort and the fact that it is non-configurable, where as ansible-pulp is configurable. (Although Debian packages with debconf could be configurable.)

Not addressed in the meeting due to lack of time is the upgrade scenario. That is not addressed yet with ansible-pulp & PyPI / source installs yet either.

#7 Updated by daviddavis 7 months ago

  • Sprint/Milestone set to 3.0

#8 Updated by bmbouter 7 months ago

  • Tags deleted (Pulp 3)

#9 Updated by daviddavis 3 months ago

  • Sprint/Milestone deleted (3.0)

Please register to edit this issue

Also available in: Atom PDF