gistfile1.txt

[15:02:21] <Dominic> I think there's a MariaDB SCL though, so we could perhaps ship another version compiled against that, not sure how easy that'd be
[15:03:18] <witlessb> samkottler: cool!
[15:03:34] <samkottler> Dominic: that'll just kick the can down the road, though, right? because fedora is gonna keep moving forward and the SCL will be supported for 3 years on the minor version
[15:05:24] <samkottler> Dominic: mccun934 said he'd talked with you about maybe dropping fedora support
[15:05:49] <Dominic> yeah, I was thinking of the EL6 SCL rather than Fedora
[15:06:11] <samkottler> which would make things easier IMO and the number of people deploying foreman for anything "real" is probably approaching 0
[15:06:24] <Dominic> he did, I think katello were keen to because of the maintenance effort.
[15:06:40] <Dominic> RDO will be a problem for us though, since they expect Fedora builds of Foreman :(
[15:07:08] <Dominic> though I did warn them yesterday that F20 with Rails 4 might not coincide with whenever we move to 4
[15:08:03] <samkottler> there's no reason (other than man power) that we can't use SCL on fedora to stay on 1.9.3 (or 2.0) with rails 3
[15:08:19] <Dominic> indeed, man power was the one I'm thinking of :)
[15:08:30] <samkottler> yep
[15:08:39] <mccun934> samkottler: yeah, it is mainly just to streamline, nobody deploys Katello on Fedora
[15:08:51] <mccun934> outside of development
[15:09:06] <samkottler> and given the already massive amounts of time we sink into packaging, it would be nice to not have to support a whole other stack
[15:10:15] <-> davidd-afk is now known as daviddavis
[15:10:49] <mccun934> yea
[15:11:47] <mccun934> jsherrill bbuckingham ehelms daviddavis walden : thoughts on the above?
[15:12:39] -*- bbuckingham reads back
[15:12:44] --> partha (partha@nat/redhat/x-kpmmizszyucsslfo) has joined #theforeman-dev
[15:12:47] <samkottler> it'll be sad that we don't support fedora, but the world will continue spinning
[15:12:56] <jsherrill> yeah, it was mainly because it was the minimal effort to get it working on f20
[15:12:57] <samkottler> ...that definitely wasn't hyperbolic
[15:13:10] <ohadlevy> mccun934: i would guess fedora is the least used one, also only a few really complained about el5...
[15:13:10] <partha> samkottler: life ...
[15:13:49] <jsherrill> I'm not sure what kind of crazy person you'd be to deploy infrastructure like this on fedora ;)
[15:13:52] <daviddavis> what about just not releasing another version that supports fedora until we have rails 4?
[15:14:01] <daviddavis> like temporarily not supporting fedora
[15:14:13] <bbuckingham> +1
[15:14:15] <ohadlevy> rails4 means ruby 1.9, which means dropping older debian/ubuntu support
[15:14:35] <samkottler> ohadlevy: only for squeeze, though
[15:14:40] <daviddavis> ubuntu is still on 1.8?
[15:14:40] <samkottler> ohadlevy: and even then people can use backports
[15:14:43] <bbuckingham> i don't think anyone would truely deploy katello/foreman on fedora given the OS has release updates so frequently
[15:14:54] <Dominic> ohadlevy: no, just means rebuildig the packages for 1.9, it's dual stack
[15:14:54] <jsherrill> err i meant f19 above not f20
[15:15:22] <ohadlevy> Dominic: not sure i follow? you expect our code base  to work on rails 3 and 4?
[15:15:25] <bbuckingham> it seems like an awful lot of overhead to support it... that said, if someone truely wanted it on fedora they could take the source and build it :)
[15:15:32] <mccun934> heh
[15:15:34] <ohadlevy> or we just keep an older version for squeeze?
[15:15:35] -*- mccun934 would wish them luck
[15:15:42] <bbuckingham> me too ;)
[15:15:44] <daviddavis> could we maybe pick a fedora release and just support it and not future fedora releases?
[15:15:52] <daviddavis> like F18
[15:16:01] <bbuckingham> imo, we could have more frequent releases if we did them on a stable os (like RHEL)
[15:16:02] <Dominic> ohadlevy: no, I mean if we use Rails 4 and require Ruby 1.9, that's fine because squeeze and others all ship both Ruby 1.9 and 1.8
[15:16:02] <samkottler> to daviddavis's point, we could skip f20 and pick up with f21
[15:16:16] <mccun934> daviddavis: but F18 will soon be EOL
[15:16:22] <ohadlevy> Dominic: ah, so lets move to 1.9 ?
[15:16:31] <ohadlevy> i mean, we still keep compatibility with 1.87 syntax
[15:16:32] <Dominic> ohadlevy: indeed, when we do rails 4
[15:16:36] <samkottler> I'll probalby push 2.1.0 into rawhide soon and we'll ship that for f21
[15:16:38] <samkottler> with latest rails 4
[15:16:42] <samkottler> probably**
[15:16:43] <bbuckingham> yep... and this isn't the first time there have been challenges that made it hard to support fedora... i think i recall the same happening 2 years ago
[15:16:59] <Dominic> samkottler: I agree with the skipping releases if needed part.. just support the releases that match what we need/support
[15:17:19] <thomasmckay> bbuckingham: https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/3269 user.name
[15:17:28] <samkottler> so just to recap
[15:17:34] <samkottler> are we agreeing to skip f20?
[15:17:47] <samkottler> and in 4 months or something like that we'll talk about f21?
[15:17:51] <ehelms> mccun934: if we have ways to deploy development environments for katello/katello-engine onto Fedora then I am fine with dropping release RPMs for Fedora, but right now our only workflow is to install Katello from RPM and then switch to git
[15:17:59] <daviddavis> samkottler: +1
[15:18:11] <daviddavis> Fedora support is a WIP
[15:18:12] <Dominic> samkottler: I'd say so, as our Rails 4 port will probably line up with F21 or something
[15:18:35] <mccun934> ehelms: yeah, we would change that model to probably installing CP+Pulp but running rails in rvm
[15:18:43] <daviddavis> ohadlevy: out of curiousity, ubuntu/debian are still on 1.8?
[15:19:02] <ehelms> mccun934: having a lightweight way to deploy pulp+candlepin would be nice :)
[15:19:03] <samkottler> daviddavis: debian + ubuntu that are fairly recently have both
[15:19:05] <Dominic> daviddavis: dual 1.8 and 1.9, default is 1.8 on slightly older versions, default is 1.9 on newer ones
[15:19:10] <jsherrill> mccun934: ehelms i wonder if kafo would help us with that
[15:19:12] <daviddavis> I see
[15:19:15] <jsherrill> a pure cp + pulp installer
[15:19:42] <samkottler> ohadlevy: you okay with this plan?
[15:19:58] <ohadlevy> samkottler: yep, but I would sent it to the list for feedback
[15:20:08] <samkottler> ohadlevy: agreed, I'll write that email now
[15:20:26] -*- ohadlevy just realized his wireless is slower than his internet connection
[15:21:10] <daviddavis> we'll still be supporting CentOS right?
[15:21:32] <Dominic> we do, any EL clone in theory
[15:21:48] <daviddavis> awesome
[15:21:49] <Dominic> beginning to support amazon linux too, which is kind of a messed up EL6
[15:21:53] <ohadlevy> Dominic: it seems like in practice...:)
[15:22:27] <Dominic> ohadlevy: I just can't remember if the installer is fully $osfamily compliant or not :)
[15:22:37] <Dominic> we were listing scientific linux derivatives at one point :)
[15:22:55] <mccun934> jsherrill: yeah, definitely
[15:23:03] <mccun934> daviddavis: yeah, any RHEL clone