On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:08 PM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:59 PM Alfredo Deza <adeza@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:38 PM Alfredo Deza <adeza@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> After the 12.2.6 release went out, we've been thinking on better ways > > >> to remove a version from our repositories to prevent users from > > >> upgrading/installing a known bad release. > > >> > > >> The way our repos are structured today means every single version of > > >> the release is included in the repository. That is, for Luminous, > > >> every 12.x.x version of the binaries is in the same repo. This is true > > >> for both RPM and DEB repositories. > > >> > > >> However, the DEB repos don't allow pinning to a given version because > > >> our tooling (namely reprepro) doesn't construct the repositories in a > > >> way that this is allowed. For RPM repos this is fine, and version > > >> pinning works. > > >> > > >> To remove a bad version we have to proposals (and would like to hear > > >> ideas on other possibilities), one that would involve symlinks and the > > >> other one which purges the known bad version from our repos. > > > > > > What we did with our mirror was: `rm -f *12.2.6*; createrepo --update > > > .` Took a few seconds. Then disabled the mirror cron. > > > > Up until next time when we cut another release and you have to > > re-enable the mirror with 12.2.6 in it :( > > > > Right... we re-sync'd 12.2.6 along with 12.2.7 -- but people here > mostly grab the highest version. > > > This is also fast for RPM repos, but not quite fast for DEB repos. > > Finally, *if* you are doing this, the metadata changes, and the repos > > need to > > be signed again. I am curious how that --update operation didn't make > > installations complain > > Good question.. I don't know enough about the repo signatures to > comment on this. I asked our mirror man. Apparently we don't sign the repo, only the rpms. So not applicable in general I suppose. Another completely different (and not my) idea, how about we retag the last good release with z+1. In this case we had 12.2.5 as the last good, and 12.2.6 broken, so we add the v12.2.7 tag on v12.2.5, effectively re-pushing 12.2.5 to the top. -- dan > I do know that all clients who had distro-sync'd up to 12.2.6 > successfully distro-sync'd back to 12.2.5. > (Our client machines yum distro-sync daily). > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > >> > > >> *Symlinking* > > >> When releasing we would have a "previous" and "latest" symlink that > > >> would get updated as versions move forward. It would require > > >> separation of versions at the URL level (all versions would no longer > > >> be available in one repo). > > >> > > >> The URL structure would then look like: > > >> > > >> debian/luminous/12.2.3/ > > >> debian/luminous/previous/ (points to 12.2.5) > > >> debian/luminous/latest/ (points to 12.2.7) > > >> > > >> Caveats: the url structure would change from debian-luminous/ to > > >> prevent breakage, and the versions would be split. For RPMs it would > > >> mean a regression if someone is used to pinning, for example pinning > > >> to 12.2.2 wouldn't be possible using the same url. > > >> > > >> Pros: Faster release times, less need to move packages around, and > > >> easier to remove a bad version > > >> > > >> > > >> *Single version removal* > > >> Our tooling would need to go and remove the known bad version from the > > >> repository, which would require to rebuild the repository again, so > > >> that the metadata is updated with the difference in the binaries. > > >> > > >> Caveats: time intensive process, almost like cutting a new release > > >> which takes about a day (and sometimes longer). Error prone since the > > >> process wouldn't be the same (one off, just when a version needs to be > > >> removed) > > >> > > >> Pros: all urls for download.ceph.com and its structure are kept the same. > > >> -- > > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > > >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |