On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:07 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, most of my concerns have already been mentioned by other folks in > this thread: > > * No rhel7/8 support will annoy people, and also increase burden on > fedora infrastructure since we would have to move our koji hubs to > Fedora instead of RHEL to be able to read the rpms made on builders. > (Or ship a custom rpm, but we have done that before and it's been always > a nightmare). I'm actually okay with the thought of Koji hub moving to Fedora. I'd rather see most of our infra running on Fedora so that we don't get kneecapped by RHEL moving too slowly. Our transition to Python 3 was made way more complicated by the fact our infrastructure ran on RHEL 6 or RHEL 7, where Python 3 wasn't available in a useful manner for a very long time. Having our own infra run on our distribution that we have a say in makes a huge difference in being able to move things forward. Not that I hate RHEL or anything, but we don't have a say in anything when it comes to RHEL, and they don't really care about bugs we report that afflict us that much. Not exactly the most solid foundation to run a distribution's infrastructure on, wouldn't you say? That said, I'm less happy about the thought that inspecting Fedora RPMs on RHEL 8 or openSUSE is going to be a royal pain. Ecosystem-wise, no one really prepared for a distribution to switch to zstd so quickly. Thankfully, it's easier to support than things like modularity, which break the entire way people do things. If we decide to do this, at least I'll try to see to get things fixed on the SUSE side. Maybe someone can push for this to be fixed on the RHEL side as well? > > * This cannot land until we finish sorting out armv7 builder issues. > (see bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576593 ). > I am trying to see if we can get away with a f29 userspace and a > specific kernel we think works. Until this is moved however, all the > armv7 buildvm's are on fedora 27, so they wouldn't be able to handle > this change. > Ugh, I didn't realize this is still a problem. It _should_ work with an F30 userspace on the F27 kernel, but that's gross... :( > * The drpm issue is somewhat minor in my mind since we don't produce > very useful drpms right now (due to pungi not having anything more than > the last updates compose to build them against). > This feels more like a failing on pungi. We don't have archives or indexes of what old composes looked like to maintain drpm content? > So, this definitely needs extra coordination if we decide to go for it. I agree. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
