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

Re: [Libosinfo] [PATCH osinfo-db 0/6] centos and scientific linux



On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 10:43 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> On 3/5/19 10:31 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 09:33 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > > On 3/5/19 7:52 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:48 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:22 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 18:41 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > > This series adds:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > * centos5 entries
> > > > > > > * centos6 <tree> data
> > > > > > > * scientificlinux 5.X
> > > > > > > * scientificlinux 6.X
> > > > > > > * scientificlinux 7.X
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No iso data is added, just URLs. I'm trying to get
> > > > > > > osinfo-db
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > all the treeinfo coverage that virt-install has.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cole, in the general the series look good (apart from one
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > has to be for "Add scientificlinux-7.X".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There's one thing that I'm interested to know, though:
> > > > > > - Is x.y considered EOL whenever x.(y+1) is released? I
> > > > > > mean,
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > 7.6
> > > > > > be considered EOL whenever 7.7 is released? If so, we'd
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > add the EOL to the 7.x entries.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Anyways, for patches #1 to #5:
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio redhat com> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Actually, let me take my "Reviewed-by" back.
> > > > > Please, take a look at 5cac22bc68[0].
> > > > > 
> > > > > There, the commit message states:
> > > > > centos: Remove URLs pointing to vault.centos.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > As vault.centos.org doesn't keep any ISO anymore, let's just
> > > > > remove
> > > > > them from our db.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Along with the URLs removal, let's remove together the tree's
> > > > > as
> > > > > those
> > > > > can't be accessed without a valid URL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Removing all the vault.centos.org URLs matches with the
> > > > > recommendation
> > > > > given by CentOS folks in #centos-devel:
> > > > > "so in short, if some program links to vault, it's most
> > > > > likely
> > > > > not a
> > > > > good idea and may not even work"
> > > > > 
> > > > > [0]: 
> > > > > https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/commit/5cac22bc6852d56988ff4be090551c5ec2f3f108
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, I guess the path to take is to drop #1 and #3.
> > > > 
> > > > Errr, dropping the URLs from #1 and #3, but keeping the
> > > > tree/treeinfo.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ACK from me, though what was centos reasoning for not pointing to
> > > vault.centos.org tree URLs? Those have been stable for years in
> > > my
> > > experience. I can understand if they don't want those advertised
> > > but
> > > it's unclear why the comment suggests it might not work
> > 
> > So, the whole conversation I had on #centos-devel was more about
> > link
> > to their medias than the tree itself, but let me try to summarise
> > everything there:
> > 
> > I've contacted #centos-devel because the EOL medias are always
> > removed
> > from vault, in a way that the links would automatically redirect
> > to 
> > http://vault.centos.org/notonvault.html ... This is expected as a
> > CentOS release becomes unsupported shortly after a new release
> > comes
> > out.
> > 
> > The trees follow pretty much the same process as the one followed
> > by
> > the ISOs. So, for instance, while we have a valid tree for 6.10 (
> > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.10/os/x86_64), the tree for 6.9
> > is
> > not valid anymore. Trying to access 
> > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/os/x86_64/ you'd get a 404 and 
> > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/ has one single file mentioning
> > that the system has reached its EOL: 
> > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/readme
> > 
> > Apart from that, I've also faced some issues where we'd have the
> > tree
> > but only with the sources but not with the packages. When I asked
> > about
> > that, the aswer that I got was that apps should not be relying on
> > vault.
> > 
> 
> Hmm I haven't seen that 'sources' issue but I guess if centos folks
> say
> 'dont use vault.centos.org' then we should listen to them.
> 
> > One thing that we can do is to:
> > - Always add the URL for the current supported release;
> > - Remove the URL as soon as the new release is done;
> > 
> Makes sense to me

About our own soap-opera here ... I'll go with the Patches #1 and #3 as
they were submitted.

> 
> - Cole


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