Oracle Linux chroots (temporarily) available in Fedora Copr
by Pavel Raiskup
Hello,
just a quick note - we enabled Oracle Linux chroots in Fedora Copr today,
this is temporarily needed by OAMG/LEAPP team for their CI/CD system.
Feel free to test those chroots, but please don't heavily depend on them
as we don't know when we'll again drop them (preferably use
epel/centos-stream chroots instead, they should provide similar build results).
Pavel
9 months, 1 week
Excluding older builds of packages from Fedora when testing new ones
in Copr
by Miro Hrončok
Hello Copr users and developers.
When we update packages in Fedora, we regularly use Copr to test the impact of
the upgrade.
For me, the procedure usually goes like this:
1) create a new copr with Fedora rawhide x86_64 chroot (and added Koji repo)
$ copr create $COPR
--repo='http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/rawhide/latest/$basearch/'
--chroot fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --delete-after-days 30
2) define and build the updated package in the copr
$ copr add-package-distgit $COPR --name $PKG --webhook-rebuild on --commit
$BRANCH --namespace forks/$(whoami)
$ copr build-package $COPR --name $PKG
3) get the list of dependent packages
$ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} [--whatrequires $spkg for each
subpackage] --recursive | grep src$ | pkgname
4) define and build the depended packages in the copr
$ parallel copr add-package-distgit $COPR --webhook-rebuild on --commit
rawhide --name -- $(repoquery from above ...)
$ parallel copr build-package $COPR --nowait --background --name --
$(repoquery from above ...)
5) analyze build failures, do a "control" rebuild in another copr if needed
However, this procedure has a flaw. Let's say I'm working on upgrading
python-click from 7.x to 8.x. And let's say a package (even transitively)
BuildRequires:
python3dist(click) < 8
The way that dnf dependency resolution works, that package will be built with
Rawhide's python3-click 7.x and it will be marked as successful. However, I'd
like to see a failure here to be notified that such package cannot be build and
will be negatively impacted by the update.
Is there a way to solve this? I have couple ideas, but none of them is fully
working:
A) Compose my own repo with the updated package and Rawhide content without it,
use that repo in the copr.
Pros:
- this is similar to what will happen in Koji once the package is updated
Cons:
- this requires tooling that I don't think exists
- this requires a place to put that repo to
- the repo creation could take a lot of time and would need to be repeated
on-demand each time rawhide changes
- Copr's Fedora chroots always include Fedora repos (maybe I can use
custom-1-x86_64 chroot?)
B) Create a Fedora side tag, explicitly block the package from it, use that
side tag's Koji repo.
Pros:
- same as (A)
Cons:
- I don't think on-demand side tags allow users to block packages
- Copr's Fedora chroots always include Fedora repos (same as (A))
- this wastes Koji's resources a bit
- requires waiting for the initial Koji regen-repo
C) Block (exclude) python3-click < 8 from the chroot.
Pros:
- no custom repos required
- no resources overhead
- no time overhead
Cons:
- There is no way exclude packages in chroot settings. Mock settings possibly
allow me to do this in config_opts['dnf.conf'].
- The exclude could obfuscate root.log resolution problems logs.
- Packager needs to figure out what exactly to exclude (possibly need to
exclude all subpackage's NEVRAs from rawhide compose (and Koji buildroot if
they differ))
Is there another way? If not, I think (C) is easiest to actually implement, if
the chroot settings page in copr gains an "excludes" option.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
11 months
rpkg-util v3 change, moving copr builders to F35
by Pavel Raiskup
Hello,
we are currently preparing Copr build system for migration to Fedora 35,
including the builder workers.
There's though, at least from the builder perspective, a major `rpkg-util`
behavior change [1] (removal of `auto_pack` feature) that many of the Copr
projects rely on. This is a bit unexpected as `auto_pack = True` has been
the default in Copr for a long time, and the rpkg-util upstream intentions
behind the feature were generally misunderstood (even in Copr team).
That being said, some of the currently working builds on F34 would fail
after the migration to F35.
In order to make the migration a bit less dramatic, we plan to migrate in
the following steps:
1. Document the feature drop and possible fixes/workarounds see [1], and
properly announce the change in advance (here we are _now_).
2. Change the default, and turn off the `auto_pack` feature for
relatively short period of time on the current F34 builders
(ie autopack=False). This will happen soon in December 2021.
The change will naturally trigger the build failures, but a bit
earlier so users will be informed sooner ... with a _temporary_
work-around in hand => everyone can provide the file
<git-root>/rpkg.conf upstream, and opt-in the old behavior with with
content like:
[rpkg]
# temporary work-around for rpkg-util v2, auto_pack is going to be
# removed soon! See:
# https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/rpkg_util_2_vs_3.html#rpkg-util-v3
auto_pack = True
3. Migrate to Fedora 35, early in January 2022. This will make the
`auto_pack = True` work-around non-working, and users will have to
adapt, again, see [1].
Of course, anyone is encouraged to migrate to the new syntax **right now**,
sooner the better. If done correctly, package can be built both with rpkg-util
v2 and v3 [2].
Sorry for inconvenience! Any comment, idea or help is welcome!
[1] https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/rpkg_util_2_vs_3.html#rpkg-util-v3
[2] https://pagure.io/copr/copr-hello/c/739ff9910ee8a9c76d7e97de2f6176106dc19...
Pavel
2 years, 2 months
Updated mock-core-configs v36.4 deployed to Fedora Copr
by Pavel Raiskup
Hello maintainers, just heads-up (on breakage today, I hope).
To bring several config fixes (especially for the broken centos-stream chroots),
the mock-core-configs was updated today.
This though also gave us an opportunity to add EPEL 9 configs. Feel free
to experiment with them. Note though Enterprise Linux 9 is not yet
available - so the EPEL 9 chroots are currently built against CentOS
Stream 9 + EPEL 9 (similarly to what is done officially in Koji ATM).
This update also means that 'epel-8' configs disappeared from
the package [1]. To avoid build failures - for now - we provide a compat
symlink from 'epel-8' config to 'centos+epel-8' in Copr. This basically
means EPEL 8 configs haven't been changed at all, for now. Some time
early in 2022 we will try to re-configure EPEL 8 chroots against RHEL 8
(subscribed content) + EPEL 8. That's because CentOS 8 goes EOL, [2].
[1] Mock release notes: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Release-Notes-2.16
[2] RHEL+EPEL Fedora devel discussion: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
Pavel
2 years, 4 months
fedora-eln-ppc64le added
by Pavel Raiskup
Hello, just a quick update,
I was asked why ELN ppc64le isn't available in Copr - the reason probably
was that at the time we were adding other fedora-eln chroots we didn't have
ppc64le builders in hands... And when we re-enabled ppc64le builders, we
forgot about adding ELN chroot.
So I created that chroot a few minutes back.
Pavel
2 years, 4 months