On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:17 PM clime <clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 01:08, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:55 PM clime <clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 00:48, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > I would just like to note that this point is not precise. Usage of git > > > submodules (and other technologies) is completely alright if they > > > still point to src.fp.o. Is there a source for the point so that I can > > > open a PR to fix it? > > > > > > > Making foreign repositories do that isn't straightforward. You would > > have to edit the repositories and change all the submodules, download > > and reimport all the LFS/Annex objects, etc. And that all tampers with > > the repository itself in ways that break the concept of having > > pristine trees mirrored to build from. > > Sorry, I don't understand: > > you make a git submodule for src.fp.o repo which points to another > src.fp.o repo. > > when you push, there is a hook in src.fp.o that checks if there is any > submodule and checks that it has the same origin as the repo the > submodule is in (i.e. src.fp.o). > > and then during build you can clone with `--recurse-submodules`. > > I don't really understand what you meant with "foreign repositories", > downloading LFS/Annex objects etc. > If you're doing mirrors and building from mirrored Git repos (as essentially what Jeremy is talking about), what you're suggesting is simply not possible or scalable. -- 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
