Kicking the t[yi]res on Rocky a bit, and I've run into an(other) RPM
dependency issue. The symptom, when attempting to install
Transaction check error:
file /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyparsing.py from install of
python2-pyparsing-2.1.10-3.el7.noarch conflicts with file from package
It appears that the RPM name changed from "pyparsing" to
"python2-pyparsing" somewhere along the way, and there's a kludgy
empty "pyparsing" RPM that "requires" "python2-pyparsing":
# rpm -qRlp /var/cache/yum/x86_64/7Server/centos7-master/packages/pyparsing-2.1.10-3.el7.noarch.rpm
python-pyparsing = 2.1.10-3.el7
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
(contains no files)
This worked OK before because the "python-cmd2" RPM delivered in the
openstack-queens repo "requires" "pyparsing":
# rpm -qRp openstack-queens/python-cmd2-0.6.8-8.el7.noarch.rpm | grep parsing
pyparsing >= 2.0.1
but the version in centos7-master "requires" "python2-pyparsing":
# rpm -qRp /var/cache/yum/x86_64/7Server/centos7-master/packages/python2-cmd2-0.8.8-5.el7.noarch.rpm
| grep parsing
python2-pyparsing >= 2.0.1
and, unfortunately, that does not obsolete "pyparsing", so we end up
with the conflict.
Not sure why they didn't just have python2-pyparsing "provide" and
This would probably not be an issue if the OS had been installed with
centos7-master to begin with, but I don't think that that can be
assumed - 7.5 comes with pyparsing-1.5.6-9.el7.noarch.
Will openstack-rocky be delivered with a version of python2-cmd that
"requires" "pyparsing", or does this need to be fixed in
centos7-master, or ..... ? Seems it will need to provide something,
since the pyparsing in currently-shipping el7 is too old ....
As you probably know Rocky GA is approaching  so it's time to start
getting our packages ready in RDOland .
Last week, client libraries and requirements were frozen so now it's the
time for package maintainers to do some things:
- Update package specs to add/remove/update dependencies in rpm-master
branch (remember we use explicit requirements for other OpenStack packages).
- If you have any other pending changes in your specs send them as soon as
- This is also a last call for new packages or dependencies that you will
need to be included in Rocky.
If you have any question or doubt feel free to use this mailing list or
poke us in #rdo.
#rdo: RDO meeting - 2018-07-25
Meeting started by amoralej at 15:00:48 UTC. The full logs are
* roll-call (amoralej, 15:01:04)
* Rocky GA is approaching - status of preparation tasks (amoralej,
* https://releases.openstack.org/rocky/schedule.html (amoralej,
* tracker card in
* ACTION: maintainers should send reviews required for rocky,
requirements updates and so on (amoralej, 15:06:29)
* use topic rocky-branching for reviews related to Rocky release
preparation (amoralej, 15:08:55)
* ACTION: amoralej to send a mail to dev@ about rocky preparation
* Rocky M3 Test Days next week 2-3 August (amoralej, 15:12:34)
* ACTION: leanderthal to send a mail about test days preparation
* Happy Birthday, OpenStack! (amoralej, 15:27:33)
* if you're keen to celebrate OpenStack's 8th, grab some cake and join
a recorded blue jeans session with me BEFORE 27 JULY 1200 UTC
* reach out to leanderthal on irc #rdo to let her know when works best
for you! (amoralej, 15:28:55)
* PagliaccisCloud and leanderthal will put together a video of all the
messages to be posted on youtube (amoralej, 15:29:07)
* next week's chair (amoralej, 15:38:35)
* ACTION: amoralej to chair next week (amoralej, 15:41:39)
* open floor (amoralej, 15:41:44)
Meeting ended at 15:44:57 UTC.
Action items, by person
* amoralej to send a mail to dev@ about rocky preparation
* amoralej to chair next week
* leanderthal to send a mail about test days preparation
People present (lines said)
* amoralej (61)
* leanderthal (37)
* drdanick27 (5)
* number80 (5)
* openstack (5)
* pabelanger (3)
* misc (3)
* PagliaccisCloud (2)
* dmsimard (2)
* EmilienM (2)
* Duck (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
A new update about the status of python3 PoC as of today:
1. Python3 packages for keystone and glance have been added to
rpm-packaging project and are available in RDO Trunk repo for fedora stable.
2. rdo-fedora-stable image is available in https://softwarefactory-
project.io nodepool to run python3 related jobs in zuulv3.
3. Changes in puppet modules and puppet-openstack-integration are merged to
create a scenario to test only python3 enabled services on fedora.
4. A third party job has been created in softwarefactory zuul to run the
python3 only scenario on fedora which is executed for upstream reviews on
p-o-i, puppet-glance and puppet-keystone.
5. tripleo-common has been added to the fedora-stable DLRN builder.
6. There is a WIP review to in kolla to build containers based on fedora
using the python3 packages in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/582290/
With last tasks, RDO part in the PoC for Rocky cycle is mostly done (there
are some missing improvements related to promotion of fedora-stable repo
which we are still working on).
Details about the tasks are in python3 trello tracker card
I'd like to arrange a retrospective for this PoC in a couple of weeks.
Please, let me know if you are interested in participating on it.
Please, let me know if you have any question about it.
It's been several years since OpenStack has been part of the Fedora
distribution. Since then, a number of things have changed.
Some of the major ones:
* Python packaging has gotten better and easier in Fedora (the changes are
* RDO now has Software Factory and full-range CI capabilities
* Fedora has CI hook support for packaging (with the transition to Pagure
* OpenStack and Fedora schedules line up again:
In my view, it's a huge shame that we don't offer OpenStack for people to
use on Fedora, integrated with the latest software. OpenStack distribution
on other distros are able to pull this off, and I feel like we should be
able to as well.
So what I want to know is the following:
* What are the (real or perceived) difficulties in packaging OpenStack for
* How difficult would it be to adapt RDO CI tooling to plug into Fedora
* How many of the underlying dependencies exist in Fedora today that were
forked into CentOS for RDO and which ones?
* What dependencies are in RDO that don't exist in Fedora?
I'm willing to help with a lot of the packaging stuff, including adapting
packages for Fedora, and helping with reviews to bring stuff back in. I
firmly believe that maintenance of OpenStack in Fedora should be far easier
than it was three years ago, when it was ripped out.
So help me... Help you!
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
I've had https://review.rdoproject.org/r/#/c/14739/ up for a little bit
now and was hoping to get some more eyes on it. It enables a
test-day-tools job that grabs a ppc64le node instead of an x86_64 one.
This allows us to iterate on a job to build ppc64le containers. If you
could give it a look it would be much appreciated.
Mike Turek <mjturek on freenode>