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

Fixes #33245 - use correct repo names on EL8 #561

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2021

Conversation

evgeni
Copy link
Member

@evgeni evgeni commented Nov 18, 2021

No description provided.

@theforeman-bot
Copy link
Member

Issues: #33245

@evgeni
Copy link
Member Author

evgeni commented Nov 18, 2021

this freaks out the 👮, but we can discuss the layout before I try to defund them?

@ehelms
Copy link
Member

ehelms commented Nov 18, 2021

@upadhyeammit per our conversations, here is another good example of being able to define and store the repositories in a single place to reduce chance to typo them or get it wrong, both within here and #546 we are defining repo names

@upadhyeammit
Copy link
Contributor

@upadhyeammit per our conversations, here is another good example of being able to define and store the repositories in a single place to reduce chance to typo them or get it wrong, both within here and #546 we are defining repo names

Ack, I will have a separate pr for that: https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/33995

lib/foreman_maintain/concerns/downstream.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/foreman_maintain/concerns/downstream.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/foreman_maintain/concerns/downstream.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@evgeni
Copy link
Member Author

evgeni commented Nov 30, 2021

Updated, now with passing 👮 and simple tests.

Beta names still borked.

@evgeni evgeni force-pushed the issue33245 branch 3 times, most recently from 7399ded to 7821817 Compare November 30, 2021 14:35
elsif el7?
["rhel-#{el_major_version}-server-#{package_name}-#{full_version}-rpms"]
elsif use_beta_repos?
["#{package_name}-#{maj_version}-beta-for-rhel-#{el_major_version}-x86_64-rpms"]
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this follows the style of satellite-tools-6-beta-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms which we already have today.

elsif el7?
["rhel-#{el_major_version}-server-satellite-maintenance-#{sat_maint_version}-rpms"]
elsif use_beta_repos?
["satellite-maintenance-#{sat_maint_version}-beta-for-rhel-#{el_major_version}-x86_64-rpms"]
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will it be satellite-maintenance-7-beta-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms or satellite-maintenance-7.0-beta-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms? I would guess the former?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the latter since the repository for maintenance is now versioned per Satellite version

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sure, but also for satellite itself, the beta repo was always "6-beta", whichever beta we shipped in there (I don't mind either way, just pointing out history)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ohh you are saying it was a one size fits all beta repository. That is indeed a question I do not know the answer to.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've updated it now to use -7-beta- to match the other names, but can adjust later, of course.

@upadhyeammit upadhyeammit merged commit b453b15 into theforeman:master Dec 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants