Hello,
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories. This was requested in https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5166 as a condition to get the Fedora Infra support. I would like to ask for the support now as this condition is finally satisfied \o/.
Perhaps this could be reflected in: - the Service Level Expectations that are being prepared - removing the user message on COPR homepage - change of the domain back to fedoraproject.org (?) - moving COPR to a platform where the support is actually possible
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in RHOSP 10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I am happy this is finally going somewhere.
clime
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories.
\o/
Nice!
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in RHOSP 10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I love this very very much. What would it take from the COPR development side to make this happen?
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories.
\o/
Nice!
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in RHOSP 10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I love this very very much. What would it take from the COPR development side to make this happen?
We would need multi arch support too, which I believe in on the OSP roadmap somewhere
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories.
\o/
Nice!
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in
RHOSP
10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I love this very very much. What would it take from the COPR development side to make this happen?
We would need to adjust builder spawning and termination. This is done by ansible playbooks. So they would use 'oc' command to communicate with OpenShift cloud controller. Everything else should work but there will likely be some software bugs.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists. fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Michal Novotny clime@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:16:16AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora
repositories.
\o/
Nice!
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in
RHOSP
10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I love this very very much. What would it take from the COPR development side to make this happen?
We would need to adjust builder spawning and termination. This is done by ansible playbooks. So they would use 'oc' command to communicate with OpenShift cloud controller. Everything else should work but there will likely be some software bugs.
I should probably mention we have an issue open for this: https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/77.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fed oraproject.org
On 07/31/2017 01:16 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hello,
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories. This was requested in https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5166 as a condition to get the Fedora Infra support. I would like to ask for the support now as this condition is finally satisfied \o/.
Well, there's still one big issue left (which is hopefully going away soon): The cloud itself isnt very supportable. We are getting new hardware in soon (it's ordered and should be installed in Aug) and are going to setup a new cloud on the latest version with multiple controller nodes in a High available setup. Once thats done and we move copr to it, we should be in a much better place. ;)
Perhaps this could be reflected in:
- the Service Level Expectations that are being prepared
- removing the user message on COPR homepage
- change of the domain back to fedoraproject.org (?)
We could do this, but we need to make sure everything is https and has a valid cert. (But I think thats the case now anyhow?)
- moving COPR to a platform where the support is actually possible
yeah, see above. ;)
We also talked about moving the frontend behind our normal proxies and internal infra. I would think that should work fine, but the backend and builders would still make more sense in cloud.
I particularly like the idea of running COPR solely in OpenShift or in RHOSP 10+ with having builders as OpenShift pods but this is not really my decision.
I think thats pretty interesting for a longer term road map, but shorter term we can just get the current setup on a better foundation.
I am happy this is finally going somewhere.
Yeah!
kevin
On 07/31/2017 11:04 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 07/31/2017 01:16 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
Hello,
COPR now operates with packages solely from official Fedora repositories. This was requested in https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5166 as a condition to get the Fedora Infra support. I would like to ask for the support now as this condition is finally satisfied \o/.
Well, there's still one big issue left (which is hopefully going away soon): The cloud itself isnt very supportable. We are getting new hardware in soon (it's ordered and should be installed in Aug) and are going to setup a new cloud on the latest version with multiple controller nodes in a High available setup. Once thats done and we move copr to it, we should be in a much better place. ;)
Perhaps this could be reflected in:
- the Service Level Expectations that are being prepared
- removing the user message on COPR homepage
- change of the domain back to fedoraproject.org (?)
We could do this, but we need to make sure everything is https and has a valid cert. (But I think thats the case now anyhow?)
Is it ok to use letsencrypt certs? There is an awesome project started by Hatter in Brno that handles getting a new letsencrypt cert for you for every route you annotate (in openshift) to tell it to do so. It'll get the cert and update the route for you. I used it this weekend and t's freakin awesome.
https://github.com/tnozicka/openshift-acme
Dusty
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org