[Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues

Tue Nov 8 15:34:15 UTC 2016

+1 to option 3.

Also I'm voicing to EPSCO that they should keep the Django14 around for
"legacy" purposes. I've been e-mailing on epel-devel to that end too. We'll
see what the sunset plan is for that at the next EPSCO meeting tomorrow.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to option 3
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Hrivnak" <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
> To: "Brian Bouterse" <bbouters at redhat.com>
> Cc: pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:32:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues
>
> 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.
>
> Michael
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161108/63d965e2/attachment.htm>