Bug 1086494 - os-refresh-config calls dib-run-parts, which is not installed
Summary: os-refresh-config calls dib-run-parts, which is not installed
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: os-refresh-config
Version: 20
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Nemec
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1092149
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-04-11 02:27 UTC by Steve Baker
Modified: 2014-05-21 23:23 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: dib-utils-0.0.0-1.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-21 23:23:06 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Steve Baker 2014-04-11 02:27:15 UTC
os-refresh-config invokes the script dib-run-parts which is installed as part of the diskimage-builder package.

There are a number of options for fixing this. By my order of preference:
* Upstream get orc to call orc-run-parts, and in the dib element symlink orc-run-parts to dib-run-parts. In the os-refresh-config package, install orc-run-parts, which is a forked copy of the current dib-run-parts maintained in the spec repo.

* package dib-run-parts separately, which os-refresh-config and diskimage-builder both depend on (seems like overkill for one script)

* os-refresh-config depends on diskimage-builder package (yuck!)

Comment 1 Ben Nemec 2014-04-14 21:48:21 UTC
Upstream wants to investigate splitting dib-run-parts into its own thing.  I don't think it will end up being just the one script since I know of at least one other script that is usable without diskimage-builder and could be moved to the new package.  There's more investigation needed though.

If we need a short-term fix, we can do the last option and make o-r-c depend on dib until the split is completed.

Comment 2 Ben Nemec 2014-04-22 21:41:02 UTC
After some discussion with upstream, we've decided to investigate splitting dib-run-parts (and likely a few other commonly useful pieces) out of diskimage-builder and into their own project/package.  However, that's probably going to take a while, so I think the short-term fix is still to just make o-r-c depend on diskimage-builder until dib-run-parts can be split out.

Comment 3 Steven Dake 2014-04-22 22:38:33 UTC
Ben,

The option of adding a depends for diskimage-builder is not desirable in any way.  The Fedora and CentOS community is already dissatisfied with the agent disk size footprint, and introducing a new package with more dependencies is seriously sub-optimal and may impact our ability to actually get these agents into the default images.

Can you analyze Steve Baker's favored proposal keeping in mind we want to optimize disk footprint to meet expectations of the Fedora and CentOS community with deadline of the next 1-2 weeks:

"
* Upstream get orc to call orc-run-parts, and in the dib element symlink orc-run-parts to dib-run-parts. In the os-refresh-config package, install orc-run-parts, which is a forked copy of the current dib-run-parts maintained in the spec repo.
"

Comment 4 Ben Nemec 2014-04-25 03:59:28 UTC
Okay, I've proposed https://review.openstack.org/90281 to split dib-run-parts off into its own project that would eliminate the dependency issues with diskimage-builder.

I would prefer not to make a temporary change upstream to alter the name of the script for o-r-c, but if we can't wait for the upstream split to happen I think we could implement it ourselves in the rpm build.   I don't think it would be difficult to create an rpm that pulls the dib-run-parts script out of the diskimage-builder source, and that way would match the future direction of upstream too.  There would be some conflict issues until the file is removed from diskimage-builder, but I think they would be manageable.

Does this sound reasonable?  The only concern I see is the time required to create the new package.

Comment 5 Steven Dake 2014-04-26 02:36:09 UTC
Ben,

We definitely need to crank this out in the next week to hit the upstream fedora/centos images.  So what you propose sounds like a plan.  Can you tackle it?  If you need a package reviewer I'm happy to provide a review or hit up zbitter, shardy, or jpeeler.  Creating a package and getting through the review process takes only a few hours with the right support for someone trained in RPM packaging (which all folks in the fedora packager group are), so I don't have a big concern around timelines for creating a new package.

Comment 6 Ben Nemec 2014-04-28 20:24:05 UTC
Steve,

I've marked the new package review request as a blocker of this bug.  Let me know what you think, or if I should ping one of the other people you mentioned.  Thanks.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-05-02 20:37:00 UTC
dib-utils-0.0.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dib-utils-0.0.0-1.fc20

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-05-03 19:58:32 UTC
dib-utils-0.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-05-19 17:40:32 UTC
os-refresh-config-0.1.5-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/os-refresh-config-0.1.5-1.fc20

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-05-21 23:23:06 UTC
dib-utils-0.0.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.