Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

new rpm/koji/mock features/configuration > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DtNTCa-gXc0ILDDHPyAcAca2GGGlENavfgPwGGgqJ_Y/edit#heading=h.iodoq4xw80c2> >. > > What does MBI stand for? > >- > >M for middlestream, module, mizdebsk, … >-

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

> I've filed > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7553 > to track this. FWIW: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1109 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fe

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 2/11/19 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 10:23 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> The repo issues seem to be our mirrorlist containers sometimes throwing >> a 503 when they shouldn't. ;( This is made worse by dnf never retrying >> them, so if it happens once thats it. We are in

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 2/11/19 5:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le 2019-02-11 13:51, Fabio Valentini a écrit : > >> Either I am unreasonably unlucky, or your statistics are wrong: >> Looking at [0], 35 of the last 44 build tasks failed due to network >> issues (not counting all sub-tasks), which is about 80%. > > Y

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 10:23 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > The repo issues seem to be our mirrorlist containers sometimes throwing > a 503 when they shouldn't. ;( This is made worse by dnf never retrying > them, so if it happens once thats it. We are investigating and trying to > fix whatever is causi

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 2/10/19 3:09 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > That's exactly my experience, as well. > > First I've put it off as "my internet connection being unreliable". > But, since almost everything works fine, but mock builds continue to fail > (mostly because of "Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'foo

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Le 2019-02-11 13:51, Fabio Valentini a écrit : Either I am unreasonably unlucky, or your statistics are wrong: Looking at [0], 35 of the last 44 build tasks failed due to network issues (not counting all sub-tasks), which is about 80%. You're not unreasonably unlucky, and the stats are not wro

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:18 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 14:31, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 14:31, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Stephen John Smoogen > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fa

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > FWIW, openQA tests have been failing relatively frequently with > > timeouts while refreshing repos or 503s from mirrormanager for the last > > few weeks. I'm pretty sure this didn't used to be anything like as > > common... > > Whether

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

> FWIW, openQA tests have been failing relatively frequently with > timeouts while refreshing repos or 503s from mirrormanager for the last > few weeks. I'm pretty sure this didn't used to be anything like as > common... Whether it's dnf upgrade of my system or mock builds, both problems have been

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 14:31, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smooge

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 12:21 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Val

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 18:29 Stephen John Smoogen On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fabio Valentini > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Va

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > librepo.LibrepoException: (8, 'Cann

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 09:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, it looks like COPR's connectivity / download issues when > > > installing the buildroot have gotten eve

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:01 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > FWIW, it looks like COPR's connectivity / download issues when > > installing the buildroot have gotten even worse over the past two > > days; > > The last 13 builds for my e

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:34, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > FWIW, it looks like COPR's connectivity / download issues when > installing the buildroot have gotten even worse over the past two > days; > The last 13 builds for my elementary-nightly repository **all** failed > due to some download issue i

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

FWIW, it looks like COPR's connectivity / download issues when installing the buildroot have gotten even worse over the past two days; The last 13 builds for my elementary-nightly repository **all** failed due to some download issue in root.log, and the situation was similar yesterday morning. At

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 9:45:06 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > Would it be possible to extend COPR to support multiple locations for > builders? For example, in addition to an OpenStack system, builders > could be hosted on an oVirt system, or AWS, or GCP, and so on? That way > it can support on-pr

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 2/4/19 4:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > Aside from the times when it falls over for various reasons, I've had > entire days where I wait for a build to even start, because people who > use it for doing things like building KDE, chromium, or the Linux > kernel occupy literally all the available buil

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:14 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > ...snip... > > > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > > Everyone complains that the service is "bad" and that the design is > > "bad" but no one wants to actually con

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:43, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:19 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > Dne 01. 02. 19 v 13:21 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > > > - builds failing due to failure to download packages from official > > > Fedora mirror dl.fedoraproject.org > > > > This is not

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 6:19 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 01. 02. 19 v 13:21 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > > - builds failing due to failure to download packages from official > > Fedora mirror dl.fedoraproject.org > > This is not first time I hear this. So I will open discussion to (again) >

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:37 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:19 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Problem №1: Build-only packages >

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>>It is not official build system of Fedora which is not helping with > >>> Problem > >>>№2: Testing of new rpm/koji/mock features/configuration > >>> > >>>

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:37 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 01. 02. 19 v 13:21 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > > - builds failing to import to COPR distgit (was not a problem before > > dist-git was introduced) > > This is actually new to me. Can you point me to some report? I will try to find a ref

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 2/1/19 4:06 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: ...snip... >>>Separate Koji + Koschei deployed in Fedora infrastructure cloud; >> >> Turns out we are going to be retiring our cloud, so no, this is not a >> place to put it. :) > > Cloud doesn't necessarily mean OpenStack. There are other options.

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 08:17, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:28 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > > > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > > > Everyone complains that the service is

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 03:26, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le jeudi 31 janvier 2019 à 19:52 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit : > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < > > > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > Proble

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Dne 31. 01. 19 v 13:24 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): > * > > COPR has been starved of resources for years, which has impaired its > ability to provide reliable service at scale. > Fedora Infrastructure refuses to consider supporting it officially and > Fedora Release Engineering seems to ha

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Dne 01. 02. 19 v 13:21 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > - builds failing due to failure to download packages from official > Fedora mirror dl.fedoraproject.org This is not first time I hear this. So I will open discussion to (again) alter builder's mock config to point to PHX location, which is just

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:00 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-02-01 13:17, Josh Boyer a écrit : > > > Fedora is a project, not a venture capital firm. Things get done > > because people do them, prove they work, get buy-in, and evolve over > > time. If that means ideas or projects start smal

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Le 2019-02-01 13:17, Josh Boyer a écrit : Fedora is a project, not a venture capital firm. Things get done because people do them, prove they work, get buy-in, and evolve over time. If that means ideas or projects start small and outside existing Fedora infrastructure, that's OK! I think the

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Le 2019-02-01 13:21, Mikolaj Izdebski a écrit : On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:28 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: ...snip... > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > Everyone complains that the service is "bad" and that the design is >

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:28 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > ...snip... > > > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > > Everyone complains that the service is "bad" and that the design is > > "bad" but no one wants to actually con

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:19 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko > > wrote: > >> > >> Problem №1: Build-only packages > >> > >> Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds app

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:46 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > If MBI is about hiding build packages I don't see the point and I'm not > interested. It's the opposite - it's about opening build process to others and allowing for collaboration. Instead of doing development by yourself in private, you use

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:59 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le jeudi 31 janvier 2019 à 19:52 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit : > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < > > > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > Pro

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:16 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2068 > > > > And, after all, those packages shouldn’t be shipped to users. > > This of course means however that users who want to build their own > verions of the applications or whatever can't start from our re

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Le jeudi 31 janvier 2019 à 19:52 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < > > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > Problem №1: Build-only packages > > > > > > Rawhide gating makes this m

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: ...snip... > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > Everyone complains that the service is "bad" and that the design is > "bad" but no one wants to actually constructively improve it. The > quality of service on COPR has fall

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> >> Problem №1: Build-only packages >> >> Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds appear in >> buildroot slower, updating group of packages would need si

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Problem №1: Build-only packages > > > Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds appear in > buildroot slower, updating group of packages would need side tags and it’s > just painful to wor

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 1/31/19 4:24 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > ProblemsProblem №1: Build-only packages > > Some ecosystems have many build-only packages (packages which are used to > build other packages, without having them installed on end-user systems). > Those ecosystems include Java, Rust and Go. > > It is ext

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Solution > >- > >Separate Koji + Koschei deployed in Fedora infrastructure cloud; > > > >- > >FAQ > > Why not COPR? > >- > >COPR has been starved of resources for years, which has impa

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Igor, This is great. It seems like it would fit in really well with the Packager Experience objective proposal[1] that Ben Rosser was working on. I know you weighed in on that thread at one point. Is this a part of that proposed objective or is it separate? [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/arc

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:40 PM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:36 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > Why does this need to be deployed in the fedora infrastructure cloud? > > Seems like you could stand it up in AWS or somewhere else. > > Because we (Fedora contributors) don't have bu

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:36 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > Why does this need to be deployed in the fedora infrastructure cloud? > Seems like you could stand it up in AWS or somewhere else. Because we (Fedora contributors) don't have budget to pay AWS bills. If someone is willing to sponsor this then AW

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:28 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > MayBe I …(can do something useful)? > > Hello, > > We've been discussing some (hopefully) nice idea with Mikolaj, Neal and Jakub > how we could improve packager (and user) experience and we have some proposal > which will be described belo

MBI (Playground 2.0)

ards :) Is it somehow related to Fedora Playground <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Playground>? Yes, it is. Although it is more developer-focused. Users could enrol for some specific things like experimental Java/Rust packages. MBI (Playground 2.0) <https://docs.google.com/docu