Re: [RFC] Optionally using git repositories instead of the lookaside cache

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:27 PM Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> The Fedora kernel is moving to maintaining the package in a source
> (sometimes people refer to it as an "exploded") tree. Basically just a
> fork of upstream. This makes a lot of packager tasks easier, but has
> introduced a minor issue with respect to the lookaside cache.
>
> Right now, it's configured to create a tarball from the git tree and
> upload it to the lookaside cache for each build. We build the rawhide
> kernel every weekday (give or take) and the xz compressed source
> tarball is ~110MB. This works out to about 28GB per year for Rawhide
> alone (if this is a drop in the bucket and no one cares please let me
> know and we'll just do this). The old approach uploaded a release
> tarball and then incremental tarballs on top of that.
>
> If, however, Fedora allowed packagers to optionally generate tarballs
> from a git repository we could just push the linux git repository. The
> entire repository with history going back 15 years is under 4GB total,
> which is pretty good when compared to ~419GB which is the space
> required for the equivalent time using the lookaside cache.
>
> What would need to change:
>
> * Fedora offers a git repository to push source trees to.
>
> * A new file in the dist-git repository could be added if the packager
>   wishes called "source-repos". In it, it contains a git url and commit
>   identifier. For example, an entry might look like:
>     "
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/sources/kernel.git v5.6"
>   where v5.6 is a tag in the repository. We can restrict it so the git
>   repository must be hosted by Fedora so we keep all the sources
>   forever.
>
> * fedpkg and fedpkg-minimal would need to be updated to pull the
>   source tree if the "source-repos" file is found and run
>   "git archive". Fortunately this work is actually already done since
>   Red Hat's version of fedpkg already supports this.
>
> I'm happy do to all the work for fedpkg/fedpkg-minimal to make this
> possible because the other option is to add a bunch of hacks to the
> kernel tooling to spit out a bunch of incremental tarballs to reduce
> what we have to upload.
>
> I assume this is something that will need to go through the packaging
> SIG, but from an infra side of things are there any thoughts/concerns?
>

At least with this _specific_ proposal, I don't see too many issues.
Adding a "sources" namespace to Pagure and setting up a workflow for
that isn't a horrible idea.

I still feel like my general concerns in original proposal from two
years ago[1] haven't been sufficiently addressed. But, given that you
seem to have a specific idea in mind here, my questions about this for
the kernel (and others that would opt into this workflow):

* Are you okay with imposing the same restrictions we have on rpms/*,
modules/*, flatpaks/*, and containers/* for sources/*? That is, no
rewriting history, no branch deletion, no tag deletion, etc.
* Are you okay with blocking the usage of submodules, Git LFS,
Git-Annex, or any other mechanism that allows bypassing our
protections or cannot be replicated from an upstream repo locally?



[1]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7498




--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux