Bug 1872080: Add Dockerfile.rhel to match build configuration in ocp-build-data

[elmiko]

This change adds a new Dockerfile.rhel file to control builds that
target rhel. It is inspired by the automatically generated patches which
ensure that build files match what is in the
ocp-build-data
repository
used for producing release artifacts.

After this change merges, the configuration files in
https://github.com/openshift/release/blob/master/ci-operator/config/openshift/cluster-api-provider-aws/openshift-cluster-api-provider-aws-master.yaml
and
https://github.com/openshift/ocp-build-data/blob/openshift-4.6/images/ose-aws-machine-controllers.yml
should be updated with the new dockerfile path.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@elmiko: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1872080, which is valid. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target release (4.6.0) matches configured target release for branch (4.6.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)

In response to this:

Bug 1872080: Add Dockerfile.rhel to match build configuration in ocp-build-data

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[elmiko]

i am proposing this instead of #347 because this allows us to have a dockerfile for our community users (Dockerfile) and a separate one for our rhel builds (Dockerfile.rhel). the older Dockerfile.rhel7 could be deprecated as we move forward, or when rhel 7 is not supported for ocp.

[michaelgugino]

/lgtm

[crawford]

/retest

[enxebre]

Shouldn't this PR get rid of the Dockerfile.rhel7? or if it's currently referenced by CI at least symlink to this new file?

[elmiko]

Shouldn't this PR get rid of the Dockerfile.rhel7? or if it's currently referenced by CI at least symlink to this new file?

after some discussion we decided to leave it for now to ensure we don't break the tooling. once this has merged and the update to the ocp-build-data has merged, then we can remove it.

[enxebre]

after some discussion we decided to leave it for now to ensure we don't break the tooling. once this has merged and the update to the ocp-build-data has merged, then we can remove it.

Why do we need 3 different dockerfiles? how would this "break the tooling", if it does is legit right? so we want to know?
This is now wanting to merge totally unused dockerfile we don't even know it builds (unless tested manually) right?

I think we should symlink the rhel7 file to this one so the tooling immediately points to this code, same for other repos. Then we can update all images in ocp-build-data in one go, ensure all CI config in release repo is appropriate and drop all rhel7 files.

[enxebre]

Thanks @elmiko
Referencing counter part PR openshift-eng/ocp-build-data#636.
Is there another PR for https://github.com/openshift/release/tree/master/ci-operator/config/openshift/cluster-api-provider-aws?

Let's move forward and make sure we follow up as per #349 (comment) to remove unnecessary dockerfiles afterwards.
/approve

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: enxebre

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [enxebre]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-bot]

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@elmiko: Some pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• operator-framework/operator-registry#426
• operator-framework/operator-marketplace#331
• operator-framework/operator-lifecycle-manager#1738
• openshift/whereabouts-cni#28
• openshift/vertical-pod-autoscaler-operator#33
• openshift/thanos#34
• openshift/telemeter#350
• openshift/sriov-network-operator#334
• openshift/sriov-network-operator#333
• openshift/sriov-network-operator#332
• openshift/sriov-network-device-plugin#29
• openshift/sriov-dp-admission-controller#20
• openshift/sriov-cni#19
• openshift/sig-storage-local-static-provisioner#24
• openshift/service-ca-operator#120
• openshift/sdn#177
• openshift/sdn#176

The following pull requests linked via external trackers have not merged:

• openshift/router#173 is open

These pull request must merge or be unlinked from the Bugzilla bug in order for it to move to the next state.

Bugzilla bug 1872080 has not been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

Bug 1872080: Add Dockerfile.rhel to match build configuration in ocp-build-data

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[elmiko]

Is there another PR for https://github.com/openshift/release/tree/master/ci-operator/config/openshift/cluster-api-provider-aws?

after asking around, it turns out that the files in that repo will be automatically re-generated from the ocp-build-data as source. we could create a patch against the release repo, but it sounded like the easiest solution is to let the tooling recreate the files.