Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simplify the Distribution Matrix for Linux Installers. #501

Open
karianna opened this issue Jul 13, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Simplify the Distribution Matrix for Linux Installers. #501

karianna opened this issue Jul 13, 2022 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@karianna
Copy link
Contributor

#499 kicked off a fun discussion in the PMC:

In essence, it isn't feasible for us to support the proliferation of Linux Distributions. However, we can through tooling and documentation make sure that folks who use a Linux distribution can easily install our packages.

As an example for Red Hat based distribution in our linux/Jenkinsfile we have something like:

'redhat' : [
            'rpm/centos/7',
            'rpm/rocky/8',
            'rpm/rhel/7',
            'rpm/rhel/8',
            'rpm/rhel/9',
            'rpm/fedora/35',
            'rpm/fedora/36',
            'rpm/oraclelinux/8',
            'rpm/amazonlinux/2',
            'rpm/oraclelinux/7'
        ],

Current thinking is to:

  1. symlink everything that isn't rpm/rhel/ to their equivalent rpm/rhel/ to retain existing compatibility.

  2. Update the website documentation on how to use the rpm/rhel/<version> for a user's specific Linux distro. This would include not "don't recommend the specific distro name", but use correct rhel/<version> instead, and provide a mapping table.

e.g. If you're using Fedora 36 then that maps to rhel version 8 (or whatever)

Originally posted by @karianna in #499 (comment)

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Jul 13, 2022

It would be best to avoid rhel, IMO. Those RPMs are generic RPMs not specific to any distro in the above list (including rhel). Considering generic-centos-derivatives would be the chosen name, then we should publish to rpm/generic-centos-derivatives/1 and symlink others to it.

The version is really an generic-centos-derivatives version, since it currently works for the above list, but might change if at some point a dependency's name changes (or more generically we need to make a incompatible change to the RPM spec which produces RPMs for the above). So the version thing is future-proofing for that case.

@jerboaa
Copy link
Contributor

jerboaa commented Jul 13, 2022

I'd also like to point out that the binary RPMs currently getting pushed to rpm/rocky/8 and rpm/fedora/36 (or any other combination of the above list) are binary identical. So pushing them to those various folders makes little sense.

@netsandbox
Copy link

Any news regarding this topic?

@karianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hasn't been discussed for awhile I'm afraid

@sxa
Copy link
Member

sxa commented May 15, 2024

Noting also that since we have a split between redhat and suse packages in the repository we would not be able to completely unify these.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants