12:25 p.m.
Hi,
Here is a patch (available in email attachment) to include updates-testing
repo
as well during Atomic Host ISO creation in bodhi updates-testing run.
Specifying
multiple repos to lorax should work fine on Fedora >=29 -
https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368 .
Can I get +1 for the patch?
Thanks,
Sinny
--
http://sinny.io/
8:37 a.m.
On 10/25/2018 01:25 PM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
Hi,
Here is a patch (available in email attachment) to include updates-testing repo
as well during Atomic Host ISO creation in bodhi updates-testing run. Specifying
multiple repos to lorax should work fine on Fedora >=29 -
https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368 .
Can I get +1 for the patch?
Thanks,
Sinny
Suggested change below. I think we just need to uncomment out the commented out code
right
above the lines you changed.
- updates run will run lorax against
- Everything
- the current updates run
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the release day repo
- updates-testing will run lorax against
- Everything
- the current updates-testing run
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the release day repo
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[
release.version_int ]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the last updates run
diff --git a/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
b/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
index af3f5ea29..91f8535aa 100644
--- a/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
+++ b/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
@@ -292,13 +292,11 @@ ostree_installer = [
[% for arch in ['x86_64', 'aarch64', 'ppc64le'] %]
'[[ arch ]]': {
"repo": [
- # For now we need to only provide one repo to lorax
- # See https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368
- # "Everything",
- # [% if request.name == 'testing' %]
- # # In the case of testing, also inject the last stable
updates
- # "https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix
}}.fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[ release.version_int
]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/",
- # [% endif %]
+ "Everything",
+ [% if request.name == 'testing' %]
+ # In the case of testing, also inject the last stable updates
+ "https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix
}}.fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[ release.version_int
]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/",
+ [% endif %]
# For f29 the compose location is under /compose/branched/
[% if release.version_int == 29 %]
"https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix
}}.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int
]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/"
10:16 a.m.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:07 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 10/25/2018 01:25 PM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch (available in email attachment) to include
updates-testing repo
> as well during Atomic Host ISO creation in bodhi updates-testing run.
Specifying
> multiple repos to lorax should work fine on Fedora >=29 -
> https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368 .
>
> Can I get +1 for the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Sinny
Suggested change below. I think we just need to uncomment out the
commented out code right
above the lines you changed.
Thanks Dusty for reviewing it!
- updates run will run lorax against
- Everything
- the current updates run
+1
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B>
release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the release day repo
With RC 1.2 being Gold, does it make sense to make this https://kojipkgs{{
env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/[[ release.version_int
]]/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/ ?
- updates-testing will run lorax against
- Everything
- the current updates-testing run
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B>
release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the release day repo
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f%5B%5B> release.version_int
]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the last updates run
diff --git a/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
b/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
index af3f5ea29..91f8535aa 100644
--- a/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
+++ b/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/pungi.rpm.conf.j2
@@ -292,13 +292,11 @@ ostree_installer = [
[% for arch in ['x86_64', 'aarch64', 'ppc64le'] %]
'[[ arch ]]': {
"repo": [
- # For now we need to only provide one repo to lorax
- # See https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368
- # "Everything",
- # [% if request.name == 'testing' %]
- # # In the case of testing, also inject the
last stable updates
- # "https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f%5B%5B> release.version_int
]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/",
- # [% endif %]
+ "Everything",
+ [% if request.name == 'testing' %]
+ # In the case of testing, also inject the last
stable updates
+ "https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/updates/f%5B%5B> release.version_int
]]-updates/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/",
+ [% endif %]
# For f29 the compose location is under
/compose/branched/
[% if release.version_int == 29 %]
"https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B>
release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/"
--
http://sinny.io/
10:54 a.m.
On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:07 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com
<mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com>> wrote:
On 10/25/2018 01:25 PM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch (available in email attachment) to include updates-testing repo
> as well during Atomic Host ISO creation in bodhi updates-testing run.
Specifying
> multiple repos to lorax should work fine on Fedora >=29 -
> https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368 .
>
> Can I get +1 for the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Sinny
Suggested change below. I think we just need to uncomment out the commented out code
right
above the lines you changed.
Thanks Dusty for reviewing it!
- updates run will run lorax against
- Everything
- the current updates run
+1
- https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix
}}.fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B> release.version_int
]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
- the release day repo
With RC 1.2 being Gold, does it make sense to make this https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix
}}.fedoraproject.org/compose/[[ <http://fedoraproject.org/compose/[[>
release.version_int ]]/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int
]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/ ?
I think probably we should just change the "if conditions" to `== 30` in places
where it makes sense now that f29 is going to be released, which should achieve the same
goal right?
Dusty
10:57 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:25 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
--
http://sinny.io/
On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:07
PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com <mailto:
dusty(a)dustymabe.com>> wrote:
>
On 10/25/2018 01:25 PM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
> > Hi,
> > > Here is a patch
(available in email attachment) to include
updates-testing repo
> > as well during Atomic Host ISO creation in bodhi updates-testing
run. Specifying
> > multiple repos to lorax should work fine on Fedora >=29 -
> > https://github.com/weldr/lorax/issues/368 .
> > > Can I get +1 for the
patch?
> > > Thanks,
> > Sinny
> Suggested change below. I
think we just need to uncomment out the
commented out code right
> above the lines you changed.
> Thanks Dusty for reviewing
it!
> - updates run will run lorax against
> - Everything
> - the current updates run
> +1
> - https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.
fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B> <
http://fedoraproject.org/compose/branched/latest-Fedora-%5B%5B release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/
> - the release day repo
> With RC 1.2 being Gold, does
it make sense to make this https://kojipkgs{{
env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B> <
http://fedoraproject.org/compose/[[> release.version_int
]]/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/ ?
I think probably we should just change the "if conditions" to `== 30` in
places where it makes sense now that f29 is going to be released, which
should achieve the same goal right?
Yeah, I will be doing same code wise
Dusty
11:09 a.m.
On 10/29/2018 11:57 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:25 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com
<mailto:dusty@dustymabe.com>> wrote:
On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
>
>
> With RC 1.2 being Gold, does it make sense to make this https://kojipkgs{{
env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/[[ <http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B>
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B>> release.version_int
]]/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/ ?
I think probably we should just change the "if conditions" to `== 30` in
places where it makes sense now that f29 is going to be released, which should achieve the
same goal right?
Yeah, I will be doing same code wise
+1
12:18 p.m.
Updated patch which has following changes:
* Include latest updates and updates-testing repos during AH ISO
creation.
* With F29 RC 1.2 declared Gold, update Atomic Host repo for OSTree
and artifacts creation from /compose/branched/ to compose/29/
* With F29 RC 1.2 declared Gold, update Silverblue repo for OSTree
creation from /compose/branched/ to compose/29/
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:39 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 10/29/2018 11:57 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:25 PM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com <mailto:
dusty(a)dustymabe.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Sinny Kumari wrote:
> >
> >
> > With RC 1.2 being Gold, does it make sense to make this
https://kojipkgs{{ env_suffix }}.fedoraproject.org/compose/[[
<http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B> <
http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B> <
http://fedoraproject.org/compose/[[ <
http://fedoraproject.org/compose/%5B%5B>> release.version_int
]]/latest-Fedora-[[ release.version_int ]]/compose/Everything/[[arch]]/os/ ?
>
>
> I think probably we should just change the "if conditions" to `==
30` in places where it makes sense now that f29 is going to be released,
which should achieve the same goal right?
>
> Yeah, I will be doing same code wise
+1
--
http://sinny.io/
1:43 p.m.
Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
+1
kevin
11:50 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:04 AM Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
+1 if this makes config cleaner :)
I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get
used
once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
That's correct!
+1
kevin
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedora...
--
http://sinny.io/
10:26 a.m.
On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
+1
+1 from me too?
can i push this?
12:47 p.m.
On 10/30/18 8:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>
> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
>
> +1
+1 from me too?
can i push this?
Sure, please do... but make sure and coordinate with updates pushes.
kevin
3:05 p.m.
On 10/30/18 1:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 10/30/18 8:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
>> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>>
>> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
>> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 from me too?
>
> can i push this?
Sure, please do... but make sure and coordinate with updates pushes.
I've been told in the past I don't need to coordinate because pungi only reads
this
file once during a run. Is that not the case?
Dusty
3:26 p.m.
On 10/30/18 1:05 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/30/18 1:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 10/30/18 8:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
>>> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>>>
>>> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
>>> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose
rawhide)?
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1 from me too?
>>
>> can i push this?
>
> Sure, please do... but make sure and coordinate with updates pushes.
>
I've been told in the past I don't need to coordinate because pungi only reads
this
file once during a run. Is that not the case?
Oh, thats likely the case, but still you might want to know when exactly
your changes are being used to help debugging problems, etc.
kevin
5:59 p.m.
On 10/30/2018 04:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 10/30/18 1:05 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/30/18 1:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On 10/30/18 8:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
>>>> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
>>>> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose
rawhide)?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> +1 from me too?
>>>
>>> can i push this?
>>
>> Sure, please do... but make sure and coordinate with updates pushes.
>>
>
> I've been told in the past I don't need to coordinate because pungi only
reads this
> file once during a run. Is that not the case?
Oh, thats likely the case, but still you might want to know when exactly
your changes are being used to help debugging problems, etc.
+1
1:12 a.m.
Thanks Dusty and Kevin!
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:21 AM Dusty Mabe <dusty(a)dustymabe.com> wrote:
On 10/30/2018 04:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 10/30/18 1:05 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/18 1:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On 10/30/18 8:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>>> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
>>>>> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get
used
>>>>> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose
rawhide)?
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me too?
>>>>
>>>> can i push this?
>>>
>>> Sure, please do... but make sure and coordinate with updates pushes.
>>>
>>
>> I've been told in the past I don't need to coordinate because pungi
only reads this
>> file once during a run. Is that not the case?
>
> Oh, thats likely the case, but still you might want to know when exactly
> your changes are being used to help debugging problems, etc.
>
+1
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedora...
--
http://sinny.io/
1:05 p.m.
On 10/30/18 11:26 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/29/18 2:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Just FYI, we should completely redo these configs using the release
> variables, but that doesn't have to be today. ;)
>
> I assume the check for f30 and using branched is only going to get used
> once we branch off f30 right (since this config doesn't compose rawhide)?
>
> +1
+1 from me too?
can i push this?
pushed and playbook ran
1998
days inactive
2004
days old
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
15 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dusty Mabe -
Kevin Fenzi -
Sinny Kumari