Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Switch RPMs to zstd compression

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

 



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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux