Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1569242
Summary: | Weak dependencies (Recommends, Supplements) not included in install trees, hence DVD media, ostrees | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Williamson <awilliam> | ||||
Component: | pungi | Assignee: | Lubomír Sedlář <lsedlar> | ||||
Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 34 | CC: | admiller, anaconda-maint-list, bcl, dennis, dmach, fzatlouk, jkeating, lsedlar, petersen, tdawson, wwoods | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | Type: | Bug | |||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 1469207 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Adam Williamson
2018-04-18 21:03:57 UTC
For the record, live media *do* pull in Recommends...at least, the 20180417.n.0 Workstation live image wasn't missing mesa-libEGL. So the questions I have are: * Add a flag for this? * Default to on? off? * How much bigger does this make the boot.iso? So to be clear, I'm not suggesting we want these packages *in the installer environment*, necessarily. I'm concerned specifically about what's in *the install trees*. Given that, it seems it may actually be Pungi, not Lorax, which decides what packages go into which install trees. Apparently Lorax only creates the installer environment or something. So, re-assigning tentatively to Pungi. Proposing this for an F28 Final freeze exception, as it affects what's included in ostrees and the Server DVD. When Pungi runs lorax, it gives it a repository with all packages, so that can resolve weak dependencies without issues. There is a plan to use the same repo for ostree creation, but that does not work due yet. Pungi itself does not currently work with weak deps at all. It's quite straightforward to add handling Recommends the same as Requires. Adding Supplements is a little more involved, but also doable. PR: https://pagure.io/pungi/pull-request/917 "When Pungi runs lorax, it gives it a repository with all packages, so that can resolve weak dependencies without issues. There is a plan to use the same repo for ostree creation, but that does not work due yet." Yes, the Everything repo...but even if we use Everything as the base repo for all ostree composes, this still leaves us with the issue of the Server DVD, which we obviously can't build from the Everything repo. The Server DVD is basically just the Server netinst plus the whole Server install tree dumped onto a DVD ISO image, AIUI. Thanks for the PR. I'd like to be sure about the impact of this change. So far as you're aware, would this affect anything *besides* the install trees and the deliverables we currently know are indirectly affected by this via the contents of the install trees (ostrees and DVD installer images)? Could it somehow cause Recommended packages to be pulled into minimal cloud or appliance images, or anything like that? Thanks! Discussed at 2018-04-23 freeze exception review meeting: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2018-04-23/f28-blocker-review.2018-04-23-16.00.html . We agreed we want to gather more information about the possible consequences of this change before deciding whether to grant an FE, including trying to figure out the whole set of Recommends: and Supplements: that actually exists in Fedora 28 at present. Created attachment 1426612 [details]
Diff of packages in compose with weak deps enabled
I re-ran gathering for Fedora-Rawhide-20180423.n.0 with weak deps enabled. Attached is a list of added packages for each variant and architecture. In Everything there are a few multilib packages on x86_64. For Server and Workstation there is a lot more additions.
Can someone eyeball it and decide if this is what is requested?
Thanks a lot for the diff. I'll look through it in detail, but some that we hadn't previously noticed jump out at me right away, like `oci-register-machine` in Server. That's because of this block in the docker spec: %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 Recommends: oci-register-machine Recommends: oci-systemd-hook Recommends: criu %else Requires: oci-register-machine Requires: oci-systemd-hook Requires: criu %endif so if you install the Server DVD with a package set that includes docker, you won't get those packages...which is probably not what we want. Here's another one which looks significant. hardlink, kpartx and pigz are in the Server and Workstation diffs because of dracut: %if 0%{?fedora} > 22 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 Recommends: grubby Recommends: hardlink Recommends: pigz Recommends: kpartx %else Requires: hardlink Requires: gzip Requires: kpartx %endif I think this means initramfs'es generated from Server DVD installs and FAW installs won't be hardlinked, unless the user subsequently explicitly installs the 'hardlink' package or it gets pulled in via some other dependency chain. As for kpartx, dracut appears to use it in relation to dmraid sets; it's *possible* that firmware RAID support on Server and FAW installs would be affected by this. I don't think pigz would be a big issue as gzip is likely included and dracut will I think just fall back from pigz to gzip. Those are just the ones that happened to jump out at me immediately, working out all of these would take a while. Thanks again for the data. This message is a reminder that Fedora 28 is nearing its end of life. On 2019-May-28 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 28. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '28'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 28 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. I don't think this got magically fixed at any time. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31. This message is a reminder that Fedora 31 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 31 on 2020-11-24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '31'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 31 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. I believe this is still an issue, and in fact I think it bit us once during the F33 cycle, though I forget the details. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 34 development cycle. Changing version to 34. Bit us again this cycle: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062 |