 |
centos8-product.png (128,626 bytes) |
|
|
So, adjusting the repo layout plus adding the relative "sub-repo" has broken foreman deployments of CentOS: http://yum.tamu.edu/centos/8/BaseOS/x86_64/os ../../../ == http://yum.tamu.edu/centos/8/ foreman/pulp/repos/ORG/Library/custom/CentOS8/base-x86_64 ../../../ == foreman/pulp/repos/ORG/Library |
|
|
Sounds like a foreman issue. Has this been reported to the foreman devs? [edit] I need to learn to read better. I am not sure what, if anything, we're able to do to accomodate this. |
|
|
I mean, I assume Redhat doesn't have this issue? Foreman / Satellite server 6 works with RHEL 8. Do they have the same relative ../../../ assumptions in their BaseOS repos? It seems like a bad idea to make big assumptions a new layout of the repositories (incompatible with any previous release of CentOS) by cross-linking them via relative paths? Historically these paths are: centos/7/os/x86_64/ Now: centos/8/BaseOS/x86_64/os/ Looking at Redhat: https://cdn.redhat.com/content/dist/rhel8/8/x86_64/baseos/os So by reorganizing from Redhat's design, CentOS has broken foreman. |
|
|
as it's relevant, my CentOS 8 installation media in foreman is: http://kwforeman.BLAH/pulp/repos/ORG/Library/custom/CentOS8/base-x86_64 A potential work-around is using the external repos vs the Foreman ones for installation, but that kind of defeats the purpose of using foreman and using our "tested" set of software packages. |
|
|
I've updated how to get this to work with Foreman/Katello on the Katello bug linked above. We'll be updating our provisioning docs. Essentially to get CentOS 8 provisioning to work you need to also sync the AppStream repo and Katello will detect that and send it to Anaconda in the kickstart. |
|
|
Another issue seems to occur, however. If in the Kickstart file you have a line like `repo --name my-custom-repo-name --baseurl http://myforeman.example.com/pulp/repos/Demo/Library/custom/CentOS/AppStream/`, it will fail because Anaconda requires the repo name to be AppStream specifically. Would it be possible for this repo name requirement to be more flexible? |
|
|
Can someone from CentOS team assess this issue and provide things that can be done on the Anaconda side or mirror side? I don't believe there's much. I filed an issue for Pulp project to investigate options: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6470 Thanks all. |
|
|
For the record, the relevant Pulp fix is at https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1755 It does not appear to work correctly, let's discuss there. I am not sure if this is something that CentOS should be fixing. It is a breaking change for 8.0 and departure from what upstream (RHEL) does. Unless CentOS wants to change it, I think there is nothing there should be done on CentOS side. |
 |
CentOS Linux 8 ended its life on December 31, 2021 and, therefore, is no longer supported. |
- Anonymous
