On 07/07/2016 03:26 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > W dniu 05.07.2016 o 18:38, George Dunlap pisze: >> On 05/07/16 16:49, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >>> W dniu 05.07.2016 o 16:28, Jim Perrin pisze: >>>> With the work that Marcin has done for openstack on aarch64, as well >>>> as the ceph builds, we need to begin working a plan for publishing >>>> these builds to a mirror. I'd like to identify the steps needed, and >>>> the ownership for those steps. >>>> >>>> Thomas please correct/update these as needed >>> >>> Added few people to Cc: from pre-RH summit threads. >>> >>>> 1. new tag in cbs for aarch64 build, with modified dist for mitaka. >>>> Will ceph need this as well? >>> >>>> 2. If we wish to re-use the centos-release-openstack-mitaka noarch, >>>> dependencies of centos-release-ceph-hammer, centos-release-qemu-ev, >>>> centos-release-storage-common, and centos-release-virt-common need >>>> to be addressed. >>> >>> It would be good to populate all those repositories. I opened bugs for >>> all tags: >>> >>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=11084 (openstack) >>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=11085 (ceph) >>> https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=11086 (virt/kvm-common) >> >> I looked at this bug, but I couldn't tell exactly what packages you >> wanted in here, and why the existing KVM packages weren't sufficient. >> Could you just sketch out a brief summary? > > You are right. I am sometimes still lost in CentOS repository structure. > > What is in x86-64 virt/kvm-common repository is present in os/ one for > aarch64 already. Only qemu-kvm-ev update (2.7.1 -> 2.10.1) would be nice > to have. We can pull this in. > So we can kill that dependency from centos-release-openstack-mitaka > package. Added note to the bug (I lack permissions to close it as notabug). I might suggest that for now (until we get the mirror bits sorted), we create a centos-release-mitaka-altarch package. This would avoid needing to mess with the existing x86_64 bits. once everything is aligned, then we can obsolete/provides the replacement and use the standard package across all architectures.

-- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 _______________________________________________ rdo-list mailing list rdo-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: > 2016-07-07 17:41 GMT+02:00 Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org&gt;: ... >> I might suggest that for now (until we get the mirror bits sorted), we >> create a centos-release-mitaka-altarch package. This would avoid needing >> to mess with the existing x86_64 bits. once everything is aligned, then >> we can obsolete/provides the replacement and use the standard package >> across all architectures. > > Works for me. I didn't understand why we need separate release -altarch package. I understand we do need separate CBS tags but they could be still mapped into the same per-arch locations under http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/cloud/ and http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/cloud/ so that current OpenStack CloudSIG .repo [1] which uses $basearch will work. Mappings for testing repo request (e.g. for RDO Newton [2]) would be: