[Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues

Michael Hrivnak mhrivnak at redhat.com
Mon Nov 7 20:32:08 UTC 2016

Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from
epel6, I think we have these options:

1) Provide a django package ourselves. No supported django release runs on
python 2.6, so we would be providing an unsupported version.
2) Show users how to install django some other way. Either by retrieving
the Django14 package direct from the build system, or via pip, or something
else. It's clear in this case that the user is taking responsibility for
installing an old and unsupported version of django, and they must be
vigilant. It's the price for running pulp on el6.
3) Stop supporting el6. This might be the nail in the coffin. It's getting
harder all the time to provide supported dependencies on el6, and el7 has
been out for a while now. If the platform removes one of our biggest
dependencies, there's only so much effort we should reasonably go to as an
upstream to keep it working.

Thoughts? Preferences? I lean toward option 3 but could be persuaded.


On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> That date was all wrong. The real date is Wednesday 11/9 at 18:00 UTC in
> #fedora-meeting on freenode.
> Yes they would add python34 to epel6, then add Django 1.8 package that
> only runs on Python 3.4. Since there are a lot of cve's against Django14
> they seemed inclined to remove it soon. Packages being incompatible with
> the 3.4 runtime would have to handle that themselves. As you point out,
> once Django14 is removed, anything Pulp 2.6+ would break.
> We should try to get them to leave Django14 in the repo for as long as
> possible. It's called Django14 and the new one would be python-django I
> believe, so there shouldn't be an issue with them both being offered in
> epel6.
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> It seems that the mongodb and Django14 packages in EPEL6 are going to be
>>> changing in some big ways. It's still early in the conversation, but here
>>> is what I've learned at the EPSCO (EPel Steering COmmitee) meeting today[0].
>>> mongodb 2.4 is not supported upstream from epel and EPSCO approved an
>>> upgrade of mongodb in epel6. It will likely be to a 3.x based version. It
>>> will first be pushed to epel-testing first. What is the newest mongodb that
>>> we are compatible with? do we know?
>>> One idea I have is to create pulp-smash test jobs which are testing pulp
>>> using bits from epel-testing in addition to epel-release. That will help us
>>> identify issues before one day it just breaks on us.
>>> Also, Django14 is on the short list to be pulled from epel6 due to
>>> upstream not supporting it and is unmaintained from a cve perspective.
>>> Everyone recognizes now that it must be replaced with something versus what
>>> happened last time of having it just removed. The current thinking is to
>>> add python34 (not scl) to epel6 and add python-django 1.8 to epel6 also.
>>> The will be discussed again at the EPSCO meeting next week on Thursday 11/2
>>> at 18:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on freenode. I'm planning to attend, but
>>> come if you're interested.
>> One or more parts of the date/time can't be right. Can you double-check?
>>> This still isn't great for Pulp 2.y on EL6. Pulp will break when
>>> Django14 is removed, even if Django 1.8 is available because Pulp 2.y and
>>> all of its deps would have to be updated to run in the Python 3.4 runtime.
>>> I believe this will likely happen before Pulp 3 is even released. I don't
>>> think we're going to switch the EL6 runtime to Python 3.4 for Pulp 2.y, so
>>> we need to think carefully about our options here.
>> Are you saying they would add python34 to epel6, then add a django 1.8
>> package that only runs on python 3.4? I suppose that would make some sense
>> since django 1.8 dropped support for python 2.6. But it wouldn't be much
>> help for pulp 2.y.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161107/6c50fda3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list