RPM meeting
Pending action items:
- AI: [ggainey] stand up an rpm/deb/ansible install and experiment, to get hard details on the actual behavior (CopySerializer issue)
- discuss adopting zero-downtime-migration strategy
- last copr issue https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/2271
Agenda template
Open, non-Draft PRs:
Un-triaged bugs:
CI status check
2025
Action Items
- Think about v4 changes
- Don't sync .treeinfo by default, opt-in
- what is "least user astonishment"?
- Default to zstd metadata
- Anything but EL7 can consume it - EL7 is now EOL
- Drop location_base, location_href from Package, maybe replace w/ "filename"
- this is a high-prio thing to address for v4
- Should pkgid and checkum type really be part of the Package?
- should def be able to look up by pkgid
- what happens at upload time?
- Drop publishing as sha384?
- package-checksum and metadata-checksum
- we currently do not allow md5/sha1 publication
- we want to reduce rpm's dependency on sha384 - in case core decides to phase out unused checksums
- we'd still allow it at sync time - but say "pulp only lets you specify 'more reasonable' checksums for publications"
- can this be done "in" Pulp3 breaking change release
- discussion: current checksum strategy is not long-term tenable
- maybe a Pulp5 discussion
- more kinds-of checksums already in use in various places
- we'll need a better way than "generate always all of these checksums"
- Force immediate download of md5 / sha1 repos?
- so that we can generate sha256 checksums and not have on-demand issues when user turns off md5/sha1 checksums
- first cut: we could "refuse on first attempt" with error-msgs that describe why, and "switch to immediate to sync this repo"
- Evaluate whether we really still need depsolving?
- let's have a "make an actual decision here" w/ katello/satellite
- If any changes need to be made to deconflict copy APIs between pulp_rpm and pulp_ansible and pulp_deb
- def a good idea for pulp-4
- prob needs Copy -> RpmCopy
Upcoming
- continue talking through/firming up the pulp_rpm-v4 changes (from AIs above)
May 15, 2025
- Make a Y release: pulp_rpm 3.30.0
- Discuss a plan for building a Pulp developer focused documentation about RPM world and its dark corners.
- advisory handling
- RPM filenames/conflicts
- onboarding/scratchpad
- high-level "here's which pieces of pulp_rpm map to which pieces of the RPM Ecosystem metadata"
- AI: [dalley] has a google doc "somewhere" - will find and link to us
- AI: [pbrochado] to take first pass at turning that into a public hackmd
- Think about v4 changes
- Don't sync .treeinfo by default, opt-in
- what is "least user astonishment"?
- Drop location_base, location_href from Package, maybe replace w/ "filename"
- this is a high-prio thing to address for v4
- Should pkgid and checkum type really be part of the Package?
- should def be able to look up by pkgid
- what happens at upload time?
- Drop publishing as sha384?
- package-checksum and metadata-checksum
- we currently do not allow md5/sha1 publication
- we want to reduce rpm's dependency on sha384 - in case core decides to phase out unused checksums
- we'd still allow it at sync time - but say "pulp only lets you specify 'more reasonable' checksums for publications"
- can this be done "in" Pulp3 breaking change release
- discussion: current checksum strategy is not long-term tenable
- maybe a Pulp5 discussion
- more kinds-of checksums already in use in various places
- we'll need a better way than "generate always all of these checksums"
- Evaluate whether we really still need depsolving?
- let's have a "make an actual decision here" w/ katello/satellite
- If any changes need to be made to deconflict copy APIs between pulp_rpm and pulp_ansible and pulp_deb
- def a good idea for pulp-4
- prob needs Copy -> RpmCopy
March 6, 2025
- pulp_rpm content-label perms need to be done differently (soon)
- investigating "fun with aiohttp and SSL and self-signed certs" again
February 13, 2025
- ready for 3.28 release?
- change-distribution-layout PR should be included
- just investigating a test-fixture issue
- consensus: wait 3.28 on this please
- remove deprecated options
- should we just…leave these?
- does change the published-API, in ways that we don't really "have to"
- consensus: not in 3.28, probably when Pulp 4 happens
- "soon"!
January 30, 2025
- discussion around zero-downtime-migrations
- review the rules
- Probably when it becomes relevant ie. when we have a major migration of some kind
- null content origin pr
- ggainey to make sure dalley/pbrochado have access
- team will decide next week whether to adjust it or wait til he is back from PTO
- PRN support PR
- no breaking news
- implementation details are Fun
- Q: on the view, check src/dest repo sanity
- lots of discussion ensues
January 23, 2025
January 16, 2025
Discussion:
- priorities
- core/3.70 support
- null-CONTENT_ORIGIN impacts
- PRN support (eg, advanced copy):
- pulp-smash removal:
- did ggainey archive 2024 minutes?
- next pulp_rpm Y-release should include 3854, 3853, 3856
- dalley creating a 3.28 milestone
January 9, 2025
-
Rename this meeting to satellite?
- maaaaybe - but we really don't talk much about non-rpm/file issues
- ggainey: we talk about Satellite/katello A LOT
- pbrochado: we do spend time dealing with just-upstream-issues
- dalley: we do talk about Satellite, but maybe only because it's the biggest stakeholder
- anthomas: what about rpm/stakeholder?
- dalley: the name may not be importnt, as long as we know what we're here for
- ggainey: do we need a Satellite-specific meeting?
- dalley: no - there's already the katello integration
- consensus: let's not
-
ttereshc: jira d2d dashboard updated/cleaned up
- what else do we need/want on this dashboard for us? Let Tanya know!
- some process-discussion has happened
-
ttereshc: Story Points on any/everything you're working on
- in-progress/closed, please
- dalley: only on pulp-side? Yes please.
- background:
- goal is, Pulp team doesn't touch top-level Sat jiras
- pulp-part is not a subtask, it's an issue in the Pulp tracker that gets linked
- "shouldn't" need to set the Sat-jira-status
- ttereshc:
- do still need to set "fixed in" on the satellite issue
- discussion/comments will prob happen on the satellite-jira
- ggainey:
- remind me what the process is when there are sat-jiras for each sat-version, that all map to "one gihub issue that is backported/released to mul.tiple pulp versions"
- answer: RTFM, Grant!
- discussion when upstream finds problems when there are not yet any Sat-Jiras/customer-cases
- def go to Sat-Eng and make it known
- prob want to discuss at katello-integration-mtg the right thing to do
- ttereshc to send anthomas doc/jiras on the current process and its logic
-
PRN support with RPM advanced copy API?
- discussion to bring anthomas up to speed on "what the hell are PRNs?"
- needs a github issue - dalley volunteers to open one
- where else might RPM need to do work?
- specifically - things we don't just get "for free" from inheriting from core?
- https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/issues/3853
-
pbrochado: discuss backporting migrations?
- discussion on why we don't do this
- there is a way to handle this for a specific fix under discussion
- there is a django-command that can make this happen
- if a migration has the same name/order/depends-on, in every single backported branch, then this can work