[Libosinfo] [PATCH osinfo-db 0/6] centos and scientific linux

[Cole Robinson]

On 3/5/19 10:31 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 09:33 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> On 3/5/19 7:52 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:48 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:22 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 18:41 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
>>>>>> This series adds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * centos5 entries
>>>>>> * centos6 <tree> data
>>>>>> * scientificlinux 5.X
>>>>>> * scientificlinux 6.X
>>>>>> * scientificlinux 7.X
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No iso data is added, just URLs. I'm trying to get osinfo-db
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> all the treeinfo coverage that virt-install has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cole, in the general the series look good (apart from one
>>>>> change
>>>>> that
>>>>> has to be for "Add scientificlinux-7.X".
>>>>>
>>>>> There's one thing that I'm interested to know, though:
>>>>> - Is x.y considered EOL whenever x.(y+1) is released? I mean,
>>>>> will
>>>>> 7.6
>>>>> be considered EOL whenever 7.7 is released? If so, we'd also
>>>>> have
>>>>> to
>>>>> add the EOL to the 7.x entries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, for patches #1 to #5:
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio at redhat.com> 
>>>>
>>>> Actually, let me take my "Reviewed-by" back.
>>>> Please, take a look at 5cac22bc68[0].
>>>>
>>>> There, the commit message states:
>>>> centos: Remove URLs pointing to vault.centos.org
>>>>
>>>> As vault.centos.org doesn't keep any ISO anymore, let's just
>>>> remove
>>>> them from our db.
>>>>
>>>> Along with the URLs removal, let's remove together the tree's as
>>>> those
>>>> can't be accessed without a valid URL.
>>>>
>>>> Removing all the vault.centos.org URLs matches with the
>>>> recommendation
>>>> given by CentOS folks in #centos-devel:
>>>> "so in short, if some program links to vault, it's most likely
>>>> not a
>>>> good idea and may not even work"
>>>>
>>>> [0]: 
>>>> https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/commit/5cac22bc6852d56988ff4be090551c5ec2f3f108
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess the path to take is to drop #1 and #3.
>>>
>>> Errr, dropping the URLs from #1 and #3, but keeping the
>>> tree/treeinfo.
>>>
>>
>> ACK from me, though what was centos reasoning for not pointing to
>> vault.centos.org tree URLs? Those have been stable for years in my
>> experience. I can understand if they don't want those advertised but
>> it's unclear why the comment suggests it might not work
> 
> So, the whole conversation I had on #centos-devel was more about link
> to their medias than the tree itself, but let me try to summarise
> everything there:
> 
> I've contacted #centos-devel because the EOL medias are always removed
> from vault, in a way that the links would automatically redirect to 
> http://vault.centos.org/notonvault.html ... This is expected as a
> CentOS release becomes unsupported shortly after a new release comes
> out.
> 
> The trees follow pretty much the same process as the one followed by
> the ISOs. So, for instance, while we have a valid tree for 6.10 (
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.10/os/x86_64), the tree for 6.9 is
> not valid anymore. Trying to access 
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/os/x86_64/ you'd get a 404 and 
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/ has one single file mentioning
> that the system has reached its EOL: 
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6.9/readme
> 
> Apart from that, I've also faced some issues where we'd have the tree
> but only with the sources but not with the packages. When I asked about
> that, the aswer that I got was that apps should not be relying on
> vault.
> 

Hmm I haven't seen that 'sources' issue but I guess if centos folks say
'dont use vault.centos.org' then we should listen to them.

> One thing that we can do is to:
> - Always add the URL for the current supported release;
> - Remove the URL as soon as the new release is done;
> 
Makes sense to me

- Cole