The initial RC will be distributed via PyPI only. The plan is to work on RPM packaging (and maybe debian/Ubuntu?) between the RC and the GA. I think your idea makes sense though once we ship OS-specific packaging.
David On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:38 AM Bryan Kearney <bkear...@redhat.com> wrote: > Do you plan to distribute rpms/.debs? > > If so, instead of using the term supported you can instead deal with it > via how you distribute: > > * Only generate native artifacts for the distros you test > * Generate pip/egg files and then it is up to the user to deploy wherever. > > -- bk > > On 9/19/18 4:06 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:55 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com > > <mailto:dawal...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > I agree with Brian 100% that if we say something is officially > > supported, we need to back that statement up, be that with Travis or > > some other level of testing, or bugfix support, etc. > > > > Looking at the multi-os docs for Travis that Brian linked to, it > > looks like it's only two options, Linux or OSX, and as he said Linux > > currently just means Ubuntu, and OSX may face some hurdles. > > > > That is right, but what we could do is have Travis be a loading > > environment for a docker container that is loaded from dockerhub. With > > that approach I think we can test Fedoras, CentOS, and maybe even RHEL > > on Travis. I know other people do this I can link to some examples if > > people want to look at it more closely. I think this is one reason why > > Travis doesn't offer more runtimes since you can get others through > > containers. OSX is special though because it can't be containerized so > > they have to offer that one. RQ can't run on Windows so we can't run > > there at all :( > > > > I think we should explore putting ^ CI in place before we take Pulp3 > > after the 3.0 RC but before the GA. > > > > > > > > Are there other forms of testing we would be willing and able to use > > to be able to officially back more OS's? I'd really like to see > > more broad support. At the very least, yes, we can list that it > > should work on a number of others and that we develop in Fedora, but > > certainly we can test in more OS's to a level of confidence to count > > as official support, right? > > > > As for documentation, David, what sort of questions have you been > > getting about it? I mean, we have documentation. I know we can > > likely improve it, or at least the visibility of it as a recent > > review suggested. Is there a particular area of concern that we > > could address? > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Dana > > > > Dana Walker > > > > Associate Software Engineer > > > > Red Hat > > > > <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > <https://red.ht/sig> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com > > <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > I want to advocate we follow the policy even for Fedora. We can > > anecdotally say in the distribution docs that we use Fedora in > > our development environment and that we expect it to work there > too. > > > > Without CI it's hard to know on an everyday basis which specific > > versions of a distribution are working. For instance with > > Fedora, even with dev environments, it's possible that we aren't > > booting into both F27 and F28 often enough and Pulp break from a > > dependency change. With CI running for the supported OS's, we'll > > know almost as fast as our users do when there is an issue on a > > supported OS. I think this is part of the "supported OS" value > > proposition. It allows us to be very precise on exactly which > > versions are being continuously tested on, down to the specific > > versions. > > > > Other/more ideas are welcome. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:19 PM David Davis > > <davidda...@redhat.com <mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > What about Fedora? We use it in our development environment > > so I think I would feel comfortable claiming official > > support for it as well it’s not in our CI environment. > > > > Other than that, your proposal sounds good to me. > > > > David > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:02 PM Brian Bouterse > > <bbout...@redhat.com <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Here is what makes sense to me. Let's have Pulp claim > > official support for any distro that we have CI for > > (Travis). This ensures every pull request change and > > nightlies are tested and provable on all supported > > distros. I believe support is about provable testing so > > without CI we can't ensure it in an ongoing way > > otherwise. Additionally though, we should say that Pulp > > will likely run anywhere that has the Python 3.6 runtime > > and has all necessary dependencies, which likely > > includes MacOS, Debian, etc. From a practical > > perspective Pulp likely will run well on all these > > distros, so even though we wouldn't claim formal > > support, our users probably aren't limited much > in-practice. > > > > The only strange thing with ^ approach is that currently > > Travis only tests on Ubuntu so we would not be able to > > claim additional support until we started testing other > > distros in containers on Travis (totally do-able) [0]. > > I'm ok w/ that though. > > > > What do you all think? > > > > [0]: https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/multi-os/ > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM, David Davis > > <davidda...@redhat.com <mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> > > wrote: > > > > Our last Pulp 3.0 planning ended a bit early a few > > weeks ago and there were a few outstanding questions > > that I would like to bring up on list for discussion > > and get some feedback. > > > > The first is around which OSes we are supporting and > > what will support include (testing on the OS, fixing > > platform-specific bugs, etc). We identified CentOS > > and Fedora as having official support. Then we also > > said we would support MacOS, Debian, and Ubuntu. > > Some confirmation and clarification on which OSes we > > are supporting and what support will mean would be > > good. Does anyone have any thoughts? > > > > Secondly, I just wanted to confirm that for the RC, > > we are planning on providing only Python packages > > via PyPI. I imagine we’ll work on providing other > > packaging formats like RPMs after the RC but before > > the GA. > > > > Lastly, there were some questions around what level > > of documentation we’re planning on having for the > > release. I’m not sure of a good way to address this > > and am looking for feedback. > > > > Thanks. > > > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
