Wouldn't upgrading the yum-conf-sl7x package itself too solve the problem after the RC and before the final?

Andras


On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 08:41:18 -0500
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I've gotten two suggestions on possible ideas here.
> 
> Thanks to Mátyás and Oleg for participating in this conversation!
> 
> Mátyás suggested possibly using 'slreleasever' to setup the repo files.  
> This would allow for a single repo set, rather than a 'rolling' and a 
> 'non-rolling' repo config.  Its an interesting idea!  I'm not sure how 
> to integrate this with the '7x' repo to allow seamless transition from 
> '7x' to '7.0' as I was considering a separate RPM to set the system to 
> '7x' rather than '7.0' - in keeping with the SL5 and SL6 traditions.
> 
> Are there other community thoughts/suggestions/solutions on this idea?
> 
> Oleg has suggested a symlink on the server side.  I'm not entirely sure 
> which problem set he is aiming at.  Oleg, may I request further 
> clarification?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the release candidate overlap? For SL6, 
> with duplicate repos, it was an annoying but solvable problem.  With a 
> single repo set, and with a release candidate _not_ linked to '7x' I 
> worry.  It is totally possible I'm worried over nothing.....
> 
> 
> One of my personal aims for SL7 is to try and make this release easy to 
> manage, while keeping the historic SL flexibility.  Am I spending time 
> on something the rest of you are not worried over or would this be a 
> helpful improvement (if we can solve it)?
> 
> 
> Again, thanks to Mátyás and Oleg for their involvement in this process!
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/03/2014 04:19 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
> > Here is the problem I'm trying to solve. I'll use SL6 as an example:
> >
> > When a user installs the '6x' config they get an additional yum repo. 
> > One for $releasever and one for 6x. While SL6.5 is 6x, you've got two 
> > repo definitions for one source.
> >
> > * Duplicate repos mean duplicate metadata, which makes 
> > yum-plugin-security complain.
> > * Duplicate repos mean two places to set any custom includes/excludes.
> > * Duplicate repos for the same data source is "not what users expect"
> >
> > Then we add to the mix our rolling tree for pre-release testing.
> >
> > We _must_ provide a yum repo pointing to '6rolling' as part of the 
> > process or users can't really test it. However, we change out the 
> > $releasever repo with the 6rolling repo. Aspects of the decision 
> > process here predate my involvement, but the crux of the reasoning 
> > predates default inclusion of '6x' - push one repo and make sure it is 
> > aimed where it should be.
> >
> > For SL7 I'd like to try and minimize our duplicate repo "problem" 
> > using yum's internals.
> >
> > Yum uses /etc/yum/vars/ as a simple way of creating key/value pairs 
> > for setting variables.
> >
> > For example run the following command on an SL6 box you manage:
> > echo broken > /etc/yum/vars/releasever
> >
> > your next 'yum update' should complain about how urls with $releasever 
> > now fail due to 'broken' not being a valid part of the url.
> >
> > Make sure to remove the file afterwards.
> >
> > With this in mind we could use the same basic yum repos for SL7, but 
> > make the 'yum-conf-sl7x' simply set $releasever to '7'. This provides 
> > instant compatibility with CentOS and shouldn't put much overhead on 
> > any 3rd party repo.
> >
> > The result is super elegant with a flaw.  And what a flaw!
> >
> > For the release itself you'd only have 3 repos: sl, sl-security, 
> > sl-fastbugs. When yum-conf-7x is installed they would automatically be 
> > converted 7 from 7.0 without breaking any 3rd party repos installed. 
> > And by using yum internals we don't need any extra tools or really 
> > much scripting. User customization to the yum repo files is preserved 
> > since they are not modified in any way.
> >
> > Where this doesn't really work is with our unreleased trees: rolling 
> > and release candidate.
> >
> > While I can trivially set $releasever to any string (see example 
> > above), I'd not expect EPEL to support a '7rolling' url within its 
> > infrastructure. So it seems like a 'rolling' repo may need to be 
> > provided, but now we've got more repo files which puts us back into 
> > the problems listed out above. This solution at least exists.
> >
> > Further problems come with the Release Candidate tree. If we keep our 
> > SL6 conversions: yum-conf-sl7x will be installed by default and the RC 
> > will be its own directory (7.1) on the ftp servers.
> >
> > How then do we get the release candidate to point into the RC dir 
> > given that it isn't '7x' isn't '7rolling' and has yum-conf-sl7x 
> > installed?
> >
> > I've no idea.......
> >
> > Pat
> >
> 
>