[Pulp-list] dropping el6 builds of Pulp
mhrivnak at redhat.com
Mon Nov 28 14:26:03 UTC 2016
Thanks everyone for your feedback, and please keep it coming if there is
It sounds like the general sentiment here and elsewhere is that the end to
making el6 RPMs should be planned and well-defined, which leans us toward
making 2.11 the last Y release to have el6 RPMs, and providing them for all
The desire to "pip install" pulp is common. In theory, you can pip install
pulp now right from the git repositories if you just check out the desired
release tags. The challenge of course is that today the RPMs provide much
more than just the code; apache configs, /etc/pulp, /var/lib/pulp, selinux
stuff, startup scripts, etc. It would be great to move a lot of that work
to a config management system and treat that as an installer, which is
probably the biggest chunk of work currently necessary to make "pip
install" a viable deployment technique. This would be wonderful to have.
Another great benefit to this general effort is that it would open up the
possibility of installing Pulp on Debian-based systems.
Getting the code onto pypi would also be helpful, although there are
namespace challenges there. It probably just needs some thought and effort.
Help is invited for all of this. In particular, it would be great to see a
shared effort around investing in Ansible-based deployment. I'll see if we
can re-engage that effort and make sure it's easy to participate.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Mihai Ibanescu <mihai.ibanescu at gmail.com>
> I would love for all the pulp components to be easily installable via pip
> install. That will probably require moving a lot of the data-manipulation
> that is happening in the rpm spec files into setup.py.
> Also, I am not sure how well pulp would handle the new paths for things
> like the json file that defines the unit types supported by a plugin.
> In other words, while worthwhile, I think it's a fair chunk of work.
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Joe Adams <adams10301 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not sure if this is a very redhat way of doing things, but what about
>> converting it over to a pip installation? That would allow it to be
>> installed in a virtual environment and run on any version of the operating
>> system so long as it can compile or install the required components. That
>> would also break you from being so closely tied to packages in the epel /
>> redhat / centos repos. We all love them for being stable and slow to
>> change, but with projects like django that have a faster release cadence,
>> it doesn't necessarily make sense to be tied to the distro's timelines. You
>> could essentially keep support for EL6 and EL7 for the foreseeable future
>> and maybe even enable people stuck on EL5 to run pulp (unsupported of
>> It's been a breeze for us to set up any python project so long as I can
>> install it in a virtual environment (even requiring python 3). Upgrades
>> also seem to go fairly smoothly besides the occasional need to add a -devel
>> package for dependencies.
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
>>> We need your input on when to stop making builds of Pulp for el6.
>>> Running Pulp on el6, which uses Python 2.6, has been getting more
>>> difficult over time. Many libraries we depend on have dropped support for
>>> Python 2.6, which exacerbates the usual challenge of making dependencies
>>> available on an aging platform.
>>> The latest news is that epel6 will remove their Django package,
>>> Django14. It has multiple CVEs (none of which we think affect Pulp) and is
>>> unsupported upstream. There is no supported version of Django that runs on
>>> Python 2.6. Thus epel has decided to remove this package from epel6 some
>>> time between Jan 31 and March 31 of 2017. Once that happens, Pulp will not
>>> be installable on el6 unless you provide that package some other way.
>>> As a workaround, el6 installation could theoretically continue after
>>> Django14 is removed by manually installing the rpm, which is accessible
>>> from the EPEL build system. But the dev team does not want to take
>>> responsibility for supporting that package; thus we need to phase out
>>> support for Pulp on el6.
>>> We want to make the transition off of el6 as smooth as it reasonably can
>>> be, so please give us some feedback. Here are two options to start the
>>> 1. Make 2.11 the last Pulp release to have el6 packages. All 2.11.z
>>> releases would get el6 support. 2.12 would have el7 and Fedora packages
>>> 2. Make el6 builds available until the day Django14 gets removed from
>>> epel6. On that day, Pulp on el6 would become unsupported and builds would
>>> Have any other ideas, or feedback on those?
>>> Thanks for your input,
>>> Pulp-list mailing list
>>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
>> Pulp-list mailing list
>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-list