Bug 1327031

Summary: rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7-4-9.4 contains outdated packages
Product: Red Hat Developer Toolset Reporter: Miloš Prchlík <mprchlik>
Component: devtoolset-4-toolchain-containerAssignee: Marek Polacek <mpolacek>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Miloš Prchlík <mprchlik>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: DTS 4.1 RHEL 7CC: bgollahe, phostacn
Target Milestone: alpha   
Target Release: 4.1   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: devtoolset-4-toolchain-docker-4-9.5 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-31 10:46:04 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:

Description Miloš Prchlík 2016-04-14 06:55:46 UTC
Description of problem:

1) the most recent DTS 4.1 toolchain image is, AFAIK, rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7-9.4. It's content is however outdated:

# docker run -it rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7 rpm -qa | grep devtoolset | sort
devtoolset-4-gcc-5.3.1-4.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gcc-c++-5.3.1-4.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gcc-gfortran-5.3.1-4.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gdb-7.11-63.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-libquadmath-devel-5.3.1-4.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-libstdc++-devel-5.3.1-4.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-runtime-4.1-3.el7.x86_64

Currently, builds in gcc and gdb errata are devtoolset-4-gcc-5.3.1-6.1, gdb erratum devtoolset-4-gdb-7.11-66.el7.

2) Apparently all other RHSCL images get new build under the tag rhscl_beta/foo-bar-whatever-package. I don't know processes behind this, but I guess it would make sense to get one for toolchain too. After all, rhscl_beta/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7 is 5 months old...


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7-4-9.4


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Marek Polacek 2016-04-14 12:36:12 UTC
(In reply to Miloš Prchlík from comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> 
> 1) the most recent DTS 4.1 toolchain image is, AFAIK,
> rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7-9.4. It's content is however outdated:

Yeah, latest devtoolset-4-toolchain-docker build was built on APR 5 while latest devtoolset-4-gcc build on APR7.

I'll try rebuilding devtoolset-4-toolchain-docker, hopefully it imbibes the latest builds.
 
> 2) Apparently all other RHSCL images get new build under the tag
> rhscl_beta/foo-bar-whatever-package. I don't know processes behind this, but
> I guess it would make sense to get one for toolchain too. After all,
> rhscl_beta/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7 is 5 months old...

Sorry, I don't understand.  Do you think that I should do some change in the Dockerfile?

Comment 2 Marek Polacek 2016-04-14 13:07:41 UTC
After rebuild:

$ docker run -i -t 9504241f165c rpm -qa | grep devtoolset | sort
devtoolset-4-gcc-5.3.1-6.1.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gcc-c++-5.3.1-6.1.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gcc-gfortran-5.3.1-6.1.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-gdb-7.11-66.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-libquadmath-devel-5.3.1-6.1.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-libstdc++-devel-5.3.1-6.1.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-runtime-4.1-3.el7.x86_64

I'll respin the erratum.

Comment 3 Miloš Prchlík 2016-04-14 17:56:00 UTC
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> (In reply to Miloš Prchlík from comment #0)
>  
> > 2) Apparently all other RHSCL images get new build under the tag
> > rhscl_beta/foo-bar-whatever-package. I don't know processes behind this, but
> > I guess it would make sense to get one for toolchain too. After all,
> > rhscl_beta/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7 is 5 months old...
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand.  Do you think that I should do some change in the
> Dockerfile?

Yes, I think the change of LABEL value in Dockerfile is necessary, to set new name of the image:

  LABEL Name="rhscl_beta/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7"

I'll ask Honza Horak what's triggering such necessity, because IIUIC, this way we cannot avoid *another* rename, when RHSCL is released, rebuilding the image once again with "rshcl/" prefix... I find it quite weird.

Comment 4 Lukáš Zachar 2016-04-15 12:10:13 UTC
My $0.02 (RHSCL PoV mostly):

Label name is filled with namespace/name of the image [1].

If the image contains new or updated collection in minor release, it it first delivered as 'beta' under namespace 'rhscl_beta'.
To get the label into the image, you need to specify it in the Dockerfile and build the image.

IFIAUI - we have option to
a) ship beta with incorrect label name (rhscl_beta to download vs rhscl in image metadata)
OR
b) do the rebuild for RC

Note that we need to do the rebuild for RC either way, as packages are signed with golden key only after Beta is out.


[1] http://docs.projectatomic.io/container-best-practices/#_labels

Comment 5 Marek Polacek 2016-04-15 13:34:26 UTC
(In reply to Lukas Zachar from comment #4)
> My $0.02 (RHSCL PoV mostly):
> 
> Label name is filled with namespace/name of the image [1].
> 
> If the image contains new or updated collection in minor release, it it
> first delivered as 'beta' under namespace 'rhscl_beta'.
> To get the label into the image, you need to specify it in the Dockerfile
> and build the image.
> 
> IFIAUI - we have option to
> a) ship beta with incorrect label name (rhscl_beta to download vs rhscl in
> image metadata)
> OR
> b) do the rebuild for RC
> 
> Note that we need to do the rebuild for RC either way, as packages are
> signed with golden key only after Beta is out.

I really don't know much about these labels, but from what I gathered b) seems like a better option.  So for now I'm keeping it as it was.

Comment 7 Miloš Prchlík 2016-04-20 07:46:04 UTC
> I really don't know much about these labels, but from what I gathered b)
> seems like a better option.  So for now I'm keeping it as it was.

Very well then, verifying for build rhscl/devtoolset-4-toolchain-rhel7:4-9.5.

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2016-05-31 10:46:04 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016:1181