Bug 1219310

Summary:	ceph-deploy should ship a default .conf file to override downstream
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) <kdreyer>
Component:	Ceph-Installer	Assignee:	Alfredo Deza <adeza>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	ceph-qe-bugs <ceph-qe-bugs>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.3.0	CC:	adeza, aschoen, bhubbard, ceph-eng-bugs, flucifre, hnallurv, nthomas, sankarshan, trhoden
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	1.3.2
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1207275	Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-12-10 22:14:38 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-05-07 02:07:05 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1207275 +++

Description of problem:
Package shipped by Fedora really must not install 3rd party unverified packages without asking anything.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ceph-deploy-1.5.21-1.fc21.noarch

How reproducible:
Always.

Steps to Reproduce:
ceph-deploy install localhost

Actual results:
[f21-ceph][INFO  ] Running command: rpm --import https://ceph.com/git/?p=ceph.git;a=blob_plain;f=keys/release.asc
[f21-ceph][INFO  ] Running command: rpm -Uvh --replacepkgs --force --quiet http://ceph.com/rpm-giant/fc21/noarch/ceph-release-1-0.fc21.noarch.rpm

Expected results:
ceph-deploy should install only packages from already configured repositories.
At most it could possibly ask if a key (with printed fingerprint) could be imported for a 3rd party repository and if a 3rd party repository could be configured.

Additional info:

--- Additional comment from Ken Dreyer on 2015-04-21 16:11:14 EDT ---

Upstream is aware of the issue and the feature that will fix this is tracked at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10951.

In short, Fedora ought to ship its own cephdeploy.conf file that points at Fedora's repositories instead of ceph.com.

Comment 1 Harish NV Rao 2015-05-13 06:51:45 UTC

Ken, can you please let me know the qe test suggestions for this bug. 

we run ceph-deploy on RHEL 7.1 ceph cluster as part of installation.

Comment 2 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-05-14 00:09:55 UTC

Alfredo, QE is looking for the specific criteria for "How can we verify that this bug is fixed". I could say something simple like "ceph-deploy should not contact ceph.com for anything", but that's already the behavior if ice_setup is run beforehand.

Would you mind clarifying what the user-facing impact is in your planned implementation? For example, are we saying that users will not need to specify --no-adjust-repos if they're running ceph-deploy downstream?

Comment 3 Harish NV Rao 2015-05-21 04:34:07 UTC

Alfredo, can you please reply to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219310#c2?

Comment 4 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-05-21 22:19:21 UTC

Travis, since Alfredo's out of the office this week, mind commenting on whether we'll still want to implement this or not?

Comment 5 Travis Rhoden 2015-05-21 23:48:34 UTC

Hey everyone,

I think we still want to implement this in general (for Fedora and other downstream packagers) but I don't see it as critical to the Stockwell release.  When paired with with ice-setup, ceph-deploy does *not* point to ceph.com for anything.  Even when not paired with ice-setup, ceph-deploy behaves differently when deployhing RHCS on RHEL, such that it will not add a .repo file to point to ceph.com (unless you provide some CLI options that our docs do not say to provide).

Given our timelines and QE load, I don't think we should target this to 1.3.0.  It's effort that doesn't significantly effect the 1.3.0 release.

Comment 6 Alfredo Deza 2015-05-27 15:21:03 UTC

Opened Pull Request: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/303

Harish: If a section with the specified key/value is set (as in the documentation example) we should no longer affect any repository changes (including the `rpm import`.

Comment 7 Harish NV Rao 2015-07-15 16:06:14 UTC

@Alfredo, I am sorry, I did not understand clearly your input in comment 6. can you please provide the steps to verify the bug fix?

Comment 8 Travis Rhoden 2015-07-17 22:56:59 UTC

The work that Alfredo did here was necessary and important, but was just a small piece of what we are going for in the bigger picture.

That bigger picture may be debatable, for sure, especially whether it is relevant in Stockwell's timeframe (1.3.x), but it certainly remains relevant for Fedora, a la https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207275.

This isn't going to land in 1.3.1, that's for sure.