On 25/Oct/2017 15:22, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 13 October 2017 at 20:49, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4 October 2017 at 15:16, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 September 2017 at 08:15, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5 Sep 2017 8:05 am, "Vít Ondruch"
<vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dne 4.9.2017 v 14:58 James Hogarth napsal(a):
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm in two minds whether to suggest we leave facter as it is
for
> >>> > F25-27 or whether to at least update those to 2.5.1 which won't
have
> >>> > the drastic 3.0 changes.
> >>>
> >>> For me it is always clear. Keep the branched versions as they are
unless
> >>> you have really good arguments for upgrade.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Usually I'd agree... but facter is way behind on bug fixes and
hasn't
> >>> seen an update in two years... a full three fedora releases ago.
> >>>
> >>> A move to the most recent 2.X on the branches whilst 3.X is arranged in
> >>> rawhide has decent justification... but I'll wait on what to do with
that
> >>> after a discussion with upstream.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > I've also not looked fully into the EPEL situation but from an
initial
> >>> > cursory look of gemfiles I think the ruby versions there are out
of
> >>> > their support matrix.
> >>>
> >>> Well, there is still just Ruby 1.8.7 in EPEL6 and these are rather old
> >>> and incompatible (mainly due to encoding support and character
> >>> handling). It should be better in EPEL7 with Ruby 2.0.0. Upstreams
tends
> >>> to drop official support for older Rubies (without any real reason
> >>> except reducing the support matrix), but the code typically works
> >>> (although you might need to relax some dependencies).
> >>>
> >>> One thing to always consider is the dependency chain, including the
> >>> build dependencies ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah this is another package that's just going to be left at an old
> >>> version in EPEL6 I fear... I really wish we could link to Red Hat SCL
> >>> packages for these situations... but oh well. Since my only
direction/goal I
> >>> this endeavour is the removal is the requirement of net-tools, and
that's
> >>> only Fedora, I'm not going to worry about it for now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> Here's a status update for this change.
> >>
> >> I have a Facter 3.9.0 package I'm happy with on initial testing.
I'll be
> >> writing up a F28 self contained change shortly. I've tested puppet in
F26
> >> against this and it appears to behave correctly - would appreciate more
eyes
> >> on it though.
> >>
> >> I'm having issues with cmake3 in EPEL7 not picking up the cmake files
from
> >> the leatherman package preventing me from building there - so that will
stay
> >> on 2.5.X for now, similar to F26 and F27 will be updated shortly staying
> >> within the 2.5.X series for compatibilty concerns.
> >>
> >> If you'd like to test the facter 3.9.0 packages this COPR can be used:
> >>
> >>
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/
> >>
> >> We'll need to coordinate on the F28 package so puppet can depend on
> >> ruby-facter instead of facter ... I'll do a repoquery to see if I can
locate
> >> any similar packages using the ruby bindings as well.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >
> > To keep the ruby sig and relevant package owners/reviewers in the loop ...
> > the change for Facter3 in F28 has been approved.
> >
> >
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767#comment-472520
> >
> > I'll get the boost-nowide review request in over the weekend, which will
> > unblock leatherman and cpp-hocon can then be submitted as well.
> >
> > The initial spec files that need a final tuning for submission, and which
> > were used for the COPR, can be found here:
> >
> >
https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/
> >
> > We've got plenty of time according to the schedule but it'd be nice to
get
> > this resolved in rawhide sooner rather than later :)
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
> >
> > James
> >
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Further update for this update ;)
>
> General stuff
> -------------------
>
> The work of Denis Arnaud has got boost157 packaged as an option in
> EPEL (as of a few minutes or so when I approve the package review).
>
> The boost-nowide dependency has it's own review and has been tested in
> both F27 and F26 as well as with the boost157 package to build
> leatherman, and packages further down the tree.
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502584
>
> The leatherman spec in my fedorapeople space was used to build the
> version in the COPR with cpp-hocon using that leatherman package to
> build and facter3 using that to build/run.
>
>
https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/facter3/
>
>
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/facter3/
>
> I've not submitted the cpp-hocon review yet as it's dependent on the
> boost-nowide one anyway.
>
> Obviously as you can see in the COPR the new facter 3 builds fine in
> EPEL7 and Fedora with the boost157 package and these two dependencies
> in place.
>
> This is all fine for Fedora and puts us in a great place to get this
> all into place in plenty of time before F28 even branches.
>
> Note that although I've built facter3 in the COPR for EPEL7 (using
> that boost157 package) and facter itself works fine ... the older
> puppet in EPEL (3.6.2 in EPEL7) is not compatible with the more recent
> facter.
>
> I'm not sure exactly yet where the specific breakage happens and
> haven't had time to dig through all the old puppet release notes to
> see where the facter compatibility changes.
>
> Does the Ruby-SIG have any plans to get puppet updated in EPEL7? If so
> we can get the new facter there too ... if not we'll need to hold back
> and I'm not even sure if the 2.5.X releases of facter would be
> compatible.
>
> Specific questions to people
> --------------------------------------
>
> Haikel, have you had time to review the changes to the leatherman spec
> and patches proposed to bring your review up to date? Do you have time
> to finish through on that review once the boost-nowide module is
> approved?
>
> Gaël, are you happy remaining POC or would you prefer I get any bug
> reports after we push facter3 out?
Hi James,
A big sorry about the slow reactivity from my part!
I think I've been promoted to POC since the new fedora sources web application,
and I appreciate you request to take over it.
> Vit, are you okay to adjust the puppet dependency in fedora to
> ruby-facter once we get the dependencies built or would you prefer I
> coordinate that change with the facter update as a Proven Packager?
>
> Thanks for all you help and time guys,
>
> James
With Gratitude,
Gaël
Hey no worries and thanks :)
FYI everything is aligned now so as soon as Haikel has done his
leatherman build in rawhide I'll be building Facter 3 there.