On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:09 PM Petr Pisar <[email protected]> wrote:
> V Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:34:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > What has the PDC [1] ever done for us? It only bough pain and misery to > me > > for no apparent benefit. > > > > > > 1) When we retire packages in dist-git, PDC creates another layer of > delay > > between dist-git and Koji and another place when synchronization > regularly > > breaks. > > > > dist-git retirement -> PDC retirement -> block in Koji > > > Maybe dist-git retirement was supposed to disappear, to unify with modules > work flow: > > PDC retirement -+-> block in Koji > +-> block in dist-git > > Having the dist-git retirement as a primary source of truth has the problem > that you need to clone a dist-git branch to get the data. And then for each > package you are interested again and again. Whereas PDC, being a database > underneath, have the data centralized at one place, and readily available > in > no time. > distgit is basically pagure in it has a DB we were thinking about moving package-specific data like EOL to in information already stored in the DB for each repository. This would allow us to use specific EOL for modules. > > Also dist-git retirement provides only a binary information: Is this > specific > branch supported, or is it retired now? In contrast, in PDC you can have > future dates: This branch will be EOLed on that day. That's not important > for > packages because they inherit the dates from Fedora release, but in case of > modules they are pretty indepenent, and unique, hence this feature is > important. E.g. I used it last two weeks pretty heavily when I, instead of > relents, was rebuilding all modules for Fedora 37. Without looking into PDC > I would have no clue whether a maintain wants that module in Fedora 37, or > not. > > Also don't forget that unretiring packages works differently from the > retirement: > > PDC unretirement -+-> unblock in Koji > +-> unblock in dist-git > > In practise you need to file an unretirment request to relengs queue in > Pagure. You cannot drive it from dist-git. And once the request is > fulfilled, > you need manually to remove the retiring commit. What will happen if > a packager does not revert it? Will we have infrastrucutre in an > inconsistent > state? > > In the end, PDC-first work flow is symetric and does not clutter dist-git > with > dead_package files. > > > 2) Rawhide packages have arbitrary EOL dates, such as 2222-01-01. > > > > 3) Even many of the modular packages have arbitrary EOL dates because > > maintainers don't know the EOL date beforehand. > > > That means there is a need for un undefined/missing EOL which should be > interpreted as "supported at any time you ask for". Once known, the EOL > date > can be changed. Relengs have a template for it in their Pagure queue. > > > 4) Packages for branched Fedoras have "epxected" EOLs, such as 2022-11-26 > > for Fedora 35. Repeatedly, this has prevented packagers from updating > their > > packages in soon-to-EOL Fedoras when the date of EOL was changed, but > not in > > PDC. > > > I lived under impression that package EOLs are inherited from Fedora > prodcut > release. Not only as work flow but also as implementation in PDC. Hence the > date is not multiplicated for each package in PDC. > Package EOL is set by releng during the branching process for each package. > > > Serious question: Why do we need PDC? What actual problems does it solve? > > > I am asking this question myself for a year, spending some time on use-cases we have, and creating initiative for the CPE team. https://pagure.io/cpe/initiatives-proposal/issue/5 The short answer is none and it causes some. And I didn't even start about that last commit in the project is years ago. > You should ask sochotni. I think he was at design of the service. > > I think a purpose of PDC was to handle release life cycle from the product > top > level to RPM components on the bottom level. But Fedora has never > onboarded to > that. Mainly because there was a huge migration to Pagure at the same time > and relengs had hands full of work on it. > > (A sideway rant: And now when Pagure more or less caught feature parity of > the > previous solution, we are going to abandone it. It reminds me a plague of > Linux desktop environments.) > > Maybe if don't need PDC for handling EOLs, do we actually need blocking > retired packags from dist-git and Koji? What's the point? > > -- Petr > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Tomas Hrcka role: CPE Team - Senior Software Engineer fas: humaton libera: jednorozec
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
