[Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues

[Jeff Ortel]

On 11/07/2016 02:32 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> 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.

+1 option 3.

> 
> Michael
> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com <mailto:bbouters at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     That date was all wrong. The real date is Wednesday11/9 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 <mailto:mhrivnak at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161107/cb91b860/attachment.sig>