On 11/07/2016 02:32 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from epel6, > I think we have these options: > > 1) Provide a django package ourselves. No supported django release runs on > python 2.6, so we would be > providing an unsupported version. > 2) Show users how to install django some other way. Either by retrieving the > Django14 package direct from the > build system, or via pip, or something else. It's clear in this case that the > user is taking responsibility > for installing an old and unsupported version of django, and they must be > vigilant. It's the price for running > pulp on el6. > 3) Stop supporting el6. This might be the nail in the coffin. It's getting > harder all the time to provide > supported dependencies on el6, and el7 has been out for a while now. If the > platform removes one of our > biggest dependencies, there's only so much effort we should reasonably go to > as an upstream to keep it working. > > Thoughts? Preferences? I lean toward option 3 but could be persuaded.
+1 option 3. > > Michael > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That date was all wrong. The real date is Wednesday11/9 at 18:00 UTC in > #fedora-meeting on freenode. > > Yes they would add python34 to epel6, then add Django 1.8 package that > only runs on Python 3.4. Since > there are a lot of cve's against Django14 they seemed inclined to remove > it soon. Packages being > incompatible with the 3.4 runtime would have to handle that themselves. > As you point out, once Django14 is > removed, anything Pulp 2.6+ would break. > > We should try to get them to leave Django14 in the repo for as long as > possible. It's called Django14 and > the new one would be python-django I believe, so there shouldn't be an > issue with them both being offered > in epel6. > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > It seems that the mongodb and Django14 packages in EPEL6 are > going to be changing in some big > ways. It's still early in the conversation, but here is what I've > learned at the EPSCO (EPel > Steering COmmitee) meeting today[0]. > > mongodb 2.4 is not supported upstream from epel and EPSCO > approved an upgrade of mongodb in epel6. > It will likely be to a 3.x based version. It will first be pushed > to epel-testing first. What is > the newest mongodb that we are compatible with? do we know? > > One idea I have is to create pulp-smash test jobs which are > testing pulp using bits from > epel-testing in addition to epel-release. That will help us > identify issues before one day it just > breaks on us. > > Also, Django14 is on the short list to be pulled from epel6 due > to upstream not supporting it and > is unmaintained from a cve perspective. Everyone recognizes now > that it must be replaced with > something versus what happened last time of having it just > removed. The current thinking is to add > python34 (not scl) to epel6 and add python-django 1.8 to epel6 > also. The will be discussed again > at the EPSCO meeting next week on Thursday 11/2 at 18:00 UTC in > #fedora-meeting on freenode. I'm > planning to attend, but come if you're interested. > > > One or more parts of the date/time can't be right. Can you > double-check? > > > > This still isn't great for Pulp 2.y on EL6. Pulp will break when > Django14 is removed, even if > Django 1.8 is available because Pulp 2.y and all of its deps > would have to be updated to run in > the Python 3.4 runtime. I believe this will likely happen before > Pulp 3 is even released. I don't > think we're going to switch the EL6 runtime to Python 3.4 for > Pulp 2.y, so we need to think > carefully about our options here. > > > Are you saying they would add python34 to epel6, then add a django > 1.8 package that only runs on > python 3.4? I suppose that would make some sense since django 1.8 > dropped support for python 2.6. But > it wouldn't be much help for pulp 2.y. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
