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 > > > >