#6791 Create module-bootstrap-master tag similar to f26-modularity
Closed: Fixed 2 years ago Opened 2 years ago by jkaluza.

Hi,

to build base-runtime module, we are using manually created f26-modularity tag which groups RPMs needed to bootstrap the base-runtime module which is later used as a base module for other modules.

This f26-modularity tag is quite old and it has been created before we even deployed MBS to prod by following rel-eng tickets:

This tag is supposed to be F26 only and therefore we would like to have similar tag to bootstrap base-runtime using the rawhide packages (that's the long-term goal).

Therefore I would like to kindly ask rel-engs to create module-bootstrap-master tag, which would:

  • white-list the same list of packages as module-package-list tag (this is tag f26-modularity inherits from)
  • contains the same packages (NVRs) as the f26-modularity tag. I'm asking rel-engs to also tag the packages, because some of them are "secure-boot" packages and cannot be tagged by us.

We are using "module-bootstrap-master" name instead of "rawhide-modularity", because it fits to current "module-" prefixed namespace of modules better.


Just fyi, I would also like to rename f26-modularity to module-bootstrap-f26 to make the purpose of this tag clear, but this is something we have to do in sync with change in PDC.

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

I'm not quite understanding the requests for documentation here. It feels very procedural, as if we are doing a strict waterfall methodology with rel-eng signoff required upfront — or else randomly gating things at the end. Rel-eng is obviously a stakeholder, but that heavyweight process doesn't feel right for Fedora.

I see that tags like f26-gnomeor f27-ocaml are generally created with very little effort; maybe a few questions about timeframe, but no cross-examination about the need for OCAML in Fedora at all or anything like that. Can't this be that easy — or, easier, since Modularity is a Council objective?

Okay, we now have a draft of the Host and Platform Fedora 27 Change Proposal. The Release Engineering review is tracked under #6815.

The Host and Platform wiki page describes the new concept, how it differs from Base Runtime and what the Bootstrap module is used for.

I'll just reiterate what's been said already -- here, during the meetings or our last week's call:

  • I would like to have a new tag created; it should be named module-bootstrap-master to follow the naming scheme MBS uses
  • this tag should inherit from module-package-list
  • we'll maintain its content ourselves, tagging and untagging builds as we attempt to stabilize the buildroot; getting an empty tag would be perfectly fine and even preferred at this point -- it doesn't need to be a copy of f26-modularity
  • this is a development tag but it's not the same as traditional Rawhide; while we intend to base our initial content by pointing our depsolving scripts at Rawhide, the module won't be following it automatically until we get it to a stable state we can later use as a reference point
  • we'll probably need to tag/untag secure boot packages sooner or later; this can be done through filing additional tickets or through granting certain people (e.g. me) the right privileges, which I'll leave to you to decide

Thanks in advance.

We have created a module-bootstrap-rawhide tag that inherits from module-package-list, there is currently no packages tagged in at all

Ah, it's rawhide, not master... well, that's okay.

Please, tag the following secure boot packages into the new tag: releng#6823

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata