[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 14:34, Troy Dawson  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smoogen 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
>>> hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
>>> modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
>>> with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
>>> even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
>>> is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
>>> have not worked.
>>>
>>> At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
>>> not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
>>> that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
>>>
>>> Steps:
>>> 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
>>> other ones required.
>>> 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
>>> 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
>>> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for
>>> that
>>> 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
>>> 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
>>> 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
>>> 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
>>> modules
>>> 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
>>> 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
>>>
>>>
>> Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting,
>> I would like to propose the change to the timeline
>>
>> 2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned
>> on by default with README.
>> 2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites
>> mirroring using Enterprise patch management systems.
>> 3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
>> /pub/archive/epel/8
>> 3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
>>
>> We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after
>> February 1st 2023.
>>
>
> Just letting people know, adjusting the timeline of the modularity will be
> first thing on the agenda in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting.
> If we are going to extend the cut off date, we need to decide that fast.
> If we are not, I need to get the word out broader than I have.
>
> I personally think we should extend it to sometime in February.  Maybe
> February 15th.  Middle of a month on a wednesday.
>
>
I agree. On a lot of reflection and some 'what the hell were you
thinking?', that is the earliest I can see this not breaking our enterprise
customers.


-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Troy Dawson]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:50 AM Stephen Smoogen  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:
>
>>
>> When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
>> hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
>> modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
>> with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
>> even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
>> is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
>> have not worked.
>>
>> At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
>> not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
>> that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
>>
>> Steps:
>> 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
>> ones required.
>> 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
>> 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
>> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for
>> that
>> 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
>> 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
>> 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
>> 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
>> modules
>> 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
>> 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
>>
>>
> Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting, I
> would like to propose the change to the timeline
>
> 2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned
> on by default with README.
> 2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites
> mirroring using Enterprise patch management systems.
> 3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> /pub/archive/epel/8
> 3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
>
> We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after
> February 1st 2023.
>

Just letting people know, adjusting the timeline of the modularity will be
first thing on the agenda in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting.
If we are going to extend the cut off date, we need to decide that fast.
If we are not, I need to get the word out broader than I have.

I personally think we should extend it to sometime in February.  Maybe
February 15th.  Middle of a month on a wednesday.

Troy
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:

>
> When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
> hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
> modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
> with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
> even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
> is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
> have not worked.
>
> At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
> not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
> that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
>
> Steps:
> 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
> ones required.
> 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
> 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for
> that
> 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
> 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
> 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
> 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
> modules
> 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
> 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
>
>
Due to the year end freezes that many Enterprise consumers are starting, I
would like to propose the change to the timeline

2b. Make changes to epel-release so that EPEL modular is no longer turned
on by default with README.
2c. Document configuration changes that would be needed for sites mirroring
using Enterprise patch management systems.
3a. Start regular Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
/pub/archive/epel/8
3b. and pointing mirrormanager to that for that

We can do steps up to 3a. and then start on 3b and other items after
February 1st 2023.

-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Maxwell G via epel-devel]

On Friday, September 9, 2022 Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in
> EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the
> repo and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear
> argument for eating the sunk cost & abandoning the idea.

Yes, the nextcloud modular packages that were in EPEL were uninstallable. 
Also, you could still include multiple versions of Nextcloud in EPEL. You'd 
just create separate non-modular nextcloud22, nextcloud23, etc. packages that 
Conflict with each other.

-- 
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Christopher Engelhard]

I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in 
EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the repo 
and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear argument for 
eating the sunk cost & abandoning the idea.

-- Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 09:54, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 02:56, Jaroslav Mracek 
> wrote:
>
>> I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think
>> that end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they
>> are only reason why developers exist.
>>
>>
> The benefit to end-users is that we aren't lying to them anymore. We
> aren't providing them with a working service, our modules can at times stop
> RHEL updates from working and we have modules we can't stop publishing
> which do not work or are not installable. We are also not improving the
> modularity build system in a way that helps those users and have not in the
> last 2+ years.
>
> In this case, I feel honesty is the best policy and stop 'delivering'
> broken software we can't fix.
>
>
I also believe that a distribution of modular sets of packages is possible
but not inside of the EPEL/Fedora ecosystem. EPEL 'works' by relying on
Fedora rules, volunteers, and infrastructure to accomplish its mission.
However there is little time or energy to deal with anything that does not
fit into the every 3 month crunch in Fedora of
Beta/Release/Beta/Release/Beta/etc Many of the changes to make modularity
work would require breaking that cycle for some time and there is little
appetite in the main community for that. Trying to keep modularity in EPEL
says 'we will get to it sometime' when we aren't.



-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 02:56, Jaroslav Mracek 
wrote:

> I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think
> that end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they
> are only reason why developers exist.
>
>
The benefit to end-users is that we aren't lying to them anymore. We aren't
providing them with a working service, our modules can at times stop RHEL
updates from working and we have modules we can't stop publishing which do
not work or are not installable. We are also not improving the modularity
build system in a way that helps those users and have not in the last 2+
years.

In this case, I feel honesty is the best policy and stop 'delivering'
broken software we can't fix.



> Somehow I feel that we are going to resolve infrastructure problem
> (missing feature, support for maintainers, stability, ...) but the bill
> will be paid (they will experience problem, breaking changes, change in
> delivery chain) by our users.
>
> We have to consider that they are not participating on such a discussion,
> the cannot vote FESCO and so on. They did not decide to ship modules in
> EPEL and probably they adopted them because they use the content of EPEL.
> We have to also consider that they can have their own content for modules.
> If we will remove modules in the middle of the release cycle they will
> suffer for to reasons. It can create some issues and simply it is
> unexpected change. We will lose their trust and may be they will move to
> another Linux distribution. I want to say that the proposal sound like a
> win for maintainers (in short term), but in long term FEDORA and RHEL will
> lose a lot.
>

I agree on that and feel we will need to write documentation to help unmess
up systems we have allowed to be messed up. For people who have modules
already installed, mirror-manager will still point to the archived versions
on dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/epel/8/modularity. They just won't get
any newer ones or updates. I realize this might be 'broken' for some
people, but I do not see it any worse for various default modules in RHEL-8
that are no longer getting any support there. You have to actively find a
non-default version of the package to get updates for that stream from Red
Hat.



> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>


-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Jaroslav Mracek]

I am curios - Is there any benefit of the proposal for end users? I think that 
end users are the most important part of the chain - be honest they are only 
reason why developers exist.

Somehow I feel that we are going to resolve infrastructure problem (missing 
feature, support for maintainers, stability, ...) but the bill will be paid 
(they will experience problem, breaking changes, change in delivery chain) by 
our users.

We have to consider that they are not participating on such a discussion, the 
cannot vote FESCO and so on. They did not decide to ship modules in EPEL and 
probably they adopted them because they use the content of EPEL. We have to 
also consider that they can have their own content for modules. If we will 
remove modules in the middle of the release cycle they will suffer for to 
reasons. It can create some issues and simply it is unexpected change. We will 
lose their trust and may be they will move to another Linux distribution. I 
want to say that the proposal sound like a win for maintainers (in short term), 
but in long term FEDORA and RHEL will lose a lot.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Maxwell G via epel-devel]

Sep 7, 2022 9:04:57 AM Petr Pisar :

What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the 
module
summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module 
list"
could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal 
wouldn't
see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available 
forever.

Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it.
I think it's worth adding notices to the module descriptions. We could 
also add scriptlets to the old modular packages to print warnings if we 
really wanted.

--
Best,

Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 10:04, Petr Pisar  wrote:

> V Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:08:59PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a):
> > When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
> > hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using
> RHEL
> > modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended
> up
> > with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install
> or
> > even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
> > is normally built have been tried for several years by different people
> but
> > have not worked.
> >
> > At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
> > not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
> > that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
> >
> > Steps:
> > 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
> > ones required.
> > 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
> > 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> > /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that
> for
> > that
> > 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
> > 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
> > 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
> > 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
> > modules
> > 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
> > 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
> >
> I heard a concern what to do with systems which use EPEL modules. What will
> happen after the modules disappear from EPEL repositories?
>
> Thanks to fails-safe machanism in DNF, the metadata for enabled module
> streams
> will be preserved in DNF's local copy. Thus users who have installed the
> modules will have them visible in "dnf module list" output even after
> removing
> them from EPEL repository. So far good.
>
> Someone proposed that EPEL should actively try to disable the EPEL modules.
> Miro mentioned that the Fedora already did it once
> <
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/c/bfc4c31d8f625d4963a8169c9ba65686da7a4ce0?branch=f31
> >
> by editing DNF configuration from an RPM scriptlet.
>
> Question is whether EPEL should do it. If EPEL did it, users would lose
> their
> modules and, I think, DNF would start mixing modular and nonmodular
> packages.
> That could cause problems when upgading those systems. One would need to
> perform "dnf distrosync --allowerasing" to repair the system.
>
> There could also be a problem if RHEL decided to deliver a module stream
> with
> an identical name. EPEL would then keep disabling the RHEL module.
>
> I believe it's safer not to actively disable the streams on user's systems.
>
>
I agree on this and would not want that to happen. The module metadata
needs to stay there



> What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module
> summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list"
> could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal
> wouldn't
> see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever.
> Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it.
>
> Any opinions how to deal with obsoleting the installed modules?
> What currently does EPEL when a maintainer decides to drop a (nonmodular)
> package?
>
>
It disappears from the mirrors but a user could grab it from koji or if it
was 'archived' in the /pub/archive snapshots which are done around the time
a . is released. Most of the modules would still be there in the
/pub/archive snapshot and a final version would be there also as step 3.



> -- Petr
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>


-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Petr Pisar]

V Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:08:59PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen napsal(a):
> When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
> hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
> modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
> with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
> even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
> is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
> have not worked.
> 
> At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
> not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
> that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
> 
> Steps:
> 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
> ones required.
> 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
> 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for
> that
> 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
> 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
> 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
> 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
> modules
> 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
> 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
> 
I heard a concern what to do with systems which use EPEL modules. What will
happen after the modules disappear from EPEL repositories?

Thanks to fails-safe machanism in DNF, the metadata for enabled module streams
will be preserved in DNF's local copy. Thus users who have installed the
modules will have them visible in "dnf module list" output even after removing
them from EPEL repository. So far good.

Someone proposed that EPEL should actively try to disable the EPEL modules.
Miro mentioned that the Fedora already did it once

by editing DNF configuration from an RPM scriptlet.

Question is whether EPEL should do it. If EPEL did it, users would lose their
modules and, I think, DNF would start mixing modular and nonmodular packages.
That could cause problems when upgading those systems. One would need to
perform "dnf distrosync --allowerasing" to repair the system.

There could also be a problem if RHEL decided to deliver a module stream with
an identical name. EPEL would then keep disabling the RHEL module.

I believe it's safer not to actively disable the streams on user's systems.

What we could do is write a notice about the end of life into the module
summaries and rebuild the modules. That way users running "dnf module list"
could see the message. But people upgrading after the module removal wouldn't
see anything. We would have keep to modular repository available forever.
Probably the idea of the notice is not worth of it. 

Any opinions how to deal with obsoleting the installed modules?
What currently does EPEL when a maintainer decides to drop a (nonmodular)
package?

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Thu, 1 Sept 2022 at 12:25, Troy Dawson  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
>> On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>> >
>> > When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with
>> the hope
>> > that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
>> modules
>> > as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
>> with a
>> > muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
>> even run
>> > on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is
>> normally
>> > built have been tried for several years by different people but have
>> not worked.
>> >
>> > At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL
>> has not
>> > worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
>> that
>> > modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
>> >
>> > Steps:
>> > 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
>> other ones
>> > required.
>> > 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
>>
>
> 2.5 - move epel-modular.repo and epel-testing-modular.repo to it's own
> sub-package of epel-repos-modular
>
>
>> > 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
>> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular
>> > and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
>> > 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
>> > 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
>> > 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
>> > 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
>> modules
>> > 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
>> > 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
>
>
>  10. Drop
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-modular.repo
> from epel-repos-modular
>
>

I agree with Miro and your changes and will put a ticket into the pagure to
start the ball rolling.


> Troy
>
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>


-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Troy Dawson]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
> hope
> > that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
> modules
> > as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with
> a
> > muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
> even run
> > on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is
> normally
> > built have been tried for several years by different people but have not
> worked.
> >
> > At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
> not
> > worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
> that
> > modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
> >
> > Steps:
> > 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any
> other ones
> > required.
> > 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
>

2.5 - move epel-modular.repo and epel-testing-modular.repo to it's own
sub-package of epel-repos-modular


> > 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular
> > and pointing mirrormanager to that for that
> > 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
> > 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
> > 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
> > 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
> modules
> > 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
> > 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.


 10. Drop
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-modular.repo
from epel-repos-modular

Troy
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Miro Hrončok]

On 31. 08. 22 23:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote:


When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the hope 
that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL modules 
as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up with a 
muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or even run 
on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL is normally 
built have been tried for several years by different people but have not worked.


At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has not 
worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose that 
modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.


Steps:
1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other ones 
required.

2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular 
and pointing mirrormanager to that for that

4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8 modules
8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.


10. Drop 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel8/f/epel-testing-modular.repo


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposal: Dropping modules from EPEL-8. Not adding modules to EPEL-9

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:08, Stephen Smoogen  wrote:

>
> When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
> hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
> modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
> with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
> even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
> is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
> have not worked.
>
> At this point it is time to say this experiment with modules in EPEL has
> not worked and focus resources on what does work. I would like to propose
> that modular support is removed from EPEL by January 2023.
>
> Steps:
> 1. Approval of this proposal by the EPEL Steering committee and any other
> ones required.
> 2. Announcement of end of life to various lists.
> 3. Archiving of the modules on XYZ date to
> /pub/archive/epel/8.-MM/Modular and pointing mirrormanager to that for
> that
> 4. Make changes in bodhi to turn off reporting about modules for EL8.
> 5. Make changes in MBS configs to turn off building modules for EL8.
> 6. Make changes in PDC for EL8 modules
> 7. Make changes in compose scripts and tools to no longer cover EPEL-8
> modules
> 8. Remove epel-8 modules from /pub/epel/8
> 9. Announce closure of this proposal and any lessons learned.
>
>
Additional notes:
This is not meant in any form as a negative statement about modules.
Modules can be made to work but not with the current build system Fedora
and thus EPEL uses. The problem is that trying to get it to work with the
existing system is too high maintenance for the resources available.
Different tooling and workflow patterns would be needed which require
dedicated effort and resources which aren't available.

-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue