[Pulp-list] dropping el6 builds of Pulp
adams10301 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 13:43:11 UTC 2016
I like the direction that this is heading and I agree that it's not an
overnight change, but something that's going to take some effort. I'd be
more than happy to help get pulp over to a pip based install and all of the
supporting work that may be necessary. I think an Ansible based deployment
would make a lot of sense. I developed an Ansible module recently to
manipulate repositories in pulp. It's waiting community approval here:
Michael, once you have some links to plans or stories ready for this
process, I'd love to see them so that I can start digging in and trying to
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
> 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
> 2.11.z releases.
> 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
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-list