Tricks = OBS download service to bring EPEL and PowerTools packages to the Uyuni repos? That sounds like a real possibility, and it should save a ton of manual work.

Thank you

Pau Garcia Quiles
SUSE Manager Product Owner & Technical Project Manager
Phone: +34 91 048 7632
SUSE Software Solutions Spain

From: Michael Calmer <mc@suse.de>
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 10:34 AM
To: devel@lists.uyuni-project.org <devel@lists.uyuni-project.org>
Subject: Re: Merging custom CentOS packages to Master
Hi Stefan

We need a bit of time to review this an give a proper answer.
We hope that we can enable CentOS building on Master by end of the week and then we can try
some tricks to include a selection of EPEL and PowerTools packages into a resulting repo for Uyuni server.
These packages would be refreshed with every "release" of Uyuni. So we would get also
fixes of these packages when they appear in EPEL/PowerTools.

What would help is, if you could provide a list of packages which are required and the source where
it come from. Also packages you want to submit newly .

And the list of Steams which needs to be enabled would help too.


Am Dienstag, 2. Februar 2021, 12:37:29 CET schrieb Stefan Bluhm:
> Hello all,
> Next big activity is pushing the required CentOS 8 packages to the Uyuni Master branches.
> The distribution of packages to repositories on the Uyuni Server are:
> - Uyuni Master:        98 + Uyuni Master Other:  58
> - New custom packages: 46
> - EPEL:                34
> - PowerTools:          50
> - CentOS 8 BaseOS:    477 + CentOS 8 AppStream: 196
> 1) I would push my newly created custom packages including kits to "Uyuni Master Other". Are there any guidelines? Otherwise I would just split out the change log of the spec file and submit.
> 2) What do we do about the EPEL and PowerTools packages? I feel a bit uneasy of pushing 84 packages (+ probable build dependencies) to OPS. Especially when you consider that these packages need to be maintained and monitored for security fixes.
> 3) One more (not so pleasant) thought is the module system. Installation requires activation of 10 modules and deactivation of 2 more modules. If we go for loading all packages of point 2) into OBS, we might as well add the ones from the modules and create an Uyuni Server module (one per major release?). That would simplify the user experience and probably use the module system as intended (but kill maintainability...).
> Let me know your thoughts and ways to continue.
> Best wishes,
> Stefan

        Michael Calmer

Michael Calmer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg
T: +49 (0) 911 74053 0
F: +49 (0) 911 74053575  - e-mail: Michael.Calmer@suse.com
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)