[Starlingx-discuss] [Build] Feedback on stxb demo

McKenna, Jason Jason.McKenna at windriver.com
Tue Sep 11 16:32:12 UTC 2018 

Hi Mario,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo at intel.com>
> Sent: September 10, 2018 4:57 PM
> To: Saul Wold <sgw at linux.intel.com>; McKenna, Jason
> <Jason.McKenna at windriver.com>; 'starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io'
> <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
> Subject: RE: [Starlingx-discuss] [Build] Feedback on stxb demo
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I have been seen excellent ideas that we can to add to the tool, however I
> think we are walking a little out of the first scope, what do you think if we
> include this as first version a we can post our ideas in the storyboard?:

I agree that we can put it out as a first preview version, however I would have strong reservations about changing the wiki documentation to suggest that this is "the official way to build" at this time.

> 
> https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2003712

+1 to the consolidation of docker images, and it sounds like that part's done.  Good job!

> 
> Then we can track all ideas suggested :)

Yeah, I think we should have ideally had a discussion about use cases and requirements before the tool was designed.  In particular, I do not think the tool (as demoed) is usable by developers.  I understand that your requirements are to come up with an end-to-end tool that would produce a build with as few commands as possible, but the current architecture of having a second repo inside the docker container is a deal-breaker for any developer trying to work on the code.  I'm all for designing and using better tools, but we shouldn't make this the official way of doing things if it places a new non-trivial burden on the devs.  There might be some wiggle room on my suggestion to support a native (rather than containerized) build.

As a tangential note, are you able to confirm that the use of a local mirror of packages rather than a download into the container from the Internet is working?  We don't want to introduce a change that would unnecessarily add hours to a build.

> 
> Best regards.
> Mario.
> ________________________________________
> From: Saul Wold [sgw at linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 10:33 AM
> To: McKenna, Jason; 'starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io'
> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Build] Feedback on stxb demo
> 
> Sorry I missed this today, I am in Denver.
> 
> Can you point me at the repo you are working in please?
> 
> On 09/10/2018 09:02 AM, McKenna, Jason wrote:
> > Hi build team,
> >
> > Many thanks for the demo today, I think we're on the right track.  As
> > promised, here are a few feedback points on the demo, from the
> > perspective of a developer:
> >
> > -I really like how the creation of the docker image is streamlined.
> >
> > -The system as currently demo'd as two copies of the repos.  One in
> > /(developers_path)/, and a second in
> > /(developers_path)/stx-
> tools/(docker_image_root_dir)/localdisk/designer/builder/starlingx/.
> > There should only one repo downloaded.
> >
> > oAs a related point, a developer working on changes to a file would
> > expect to make their changes to the repo in /(developers_path)/,
> > rather than to the version in the docker image's filesystem.  If I
> > edited a puppet manifest (for example)
> > /(developers_path)/cgcs-root/stx/stx-config/.../ then I would expect the
> > build command to detect and use my changes if I do a build.
> >
> > -I'm a bit confused on the syntax regarding specifying and using
> > localized mirrors, specifically with the -n and -p options.  Would you
> > provide examples of what commands I'd execute for use cases 1 and 2
> > below? I'm pretty sure these usages are supported, but am just seeking
> > clarification.
> >
> > -Very happy do see it down to 1 docker image, rather than 2 J
> >
> > -Native build - Being able to build in a docker image is great, but
> > the would ideally be an option to perform a native build, rather than
> > have to use a container
> >
> > -Minor nit - logs should be in a user directory (like
> > $MY_REPO_ROOT_DIR/logs/) rather than in /var/log, as a non-privileged
> > user wouldn't be able to log to /var/log.
> >
> > -Question - what privileges are required to create the docker image?
> > Does the script assume the user has sudo privileges?
> >
> > -I'm unclear on what would happen with use cases 3-5 below.  Have
> > these types of uses been considered yet?
> >
> Jason,
> 
> Thanks for this feedback and the use case suggestions below, see additional
> comments.
> 
> > Thanks again for the demo,
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> > Use Case 1:
> >
> >                  I am an organization with a site who is working with
> > StarlingX.  I want to provide a local mirror for my employees to use
> > so they don't have to download all artifacts from the external
> > internet every time. I want to create an automated job which I will
> > run daily to download all artifacts from the Internet (if they do not
> > already exist) and place them in directory /export/mirrors/starlingx.
> > Assume the user running the automated job has permissions to write to
> > /export/mirrors/starlingx
> >
> Based on your usage of /export and /import below, /export is on a server
> machine and /import is on the local developer build machine, just for
> clarification.
> 
> Also, this job would run native on the host Linux OS not containerized?
> 
> 
> > Use Case 2:
> >
> >                  I am a developer within an organization which has a
> > local mirror of artifacts available in /import/mirrors/starlingx.  I
> > want to build a StarlingX ISO without downloading rpms or src.rpms
> > from the external internet.
> >
> To further clarify this one, the remote mirror could contain all binary rpms
> along with their cooresponding src rpm, such that if no changes all the
> building of an ISO would be done from the mirror rpms, no actual local rpm
> build required unless it changes (use case 4/5 below).
> 
> > Use Case 3A:
> >
> >                  After doing a build, I just performed a repo sync,
> > and the .lst files were not updated.  If I perform another build of
> > the ISO, will the system attempt to redownload external artifacts,
> > even though nothing has changed?
> >
> > Use Case 3B:
> >
> >                  After doing a build, I just performed a repo sync,
> > and noticed that the .lst files have been updated.  If I perform
> > another build of the ISO, will the stale mirror content be detected
> > and the new additions downloaded (while not re-downloading anything
> > which has not changed)?
> >
> > Use Case 4:
> >
> >                  I have manually made a change to a puppet manifest in
> > sysinv (stx-config git) but want to test before I commit anything.
> > How can I build a new ISO with my changes incorporated?
> >
> I would say not just puppet manifest, but any change to files in the repos.
> 
> > Use Case 5:
> >
> >                  I want to test StarlingX with my own additional
> > program
> > (foobar.x86_64.rpm) on the ISO.  How would I perform a build with this
> > file added?
> >
> I look forward to seeing the demo also.
> 
> Sau!
> 
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> > Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> > http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss

More information about the Starlingx-discuss mailing list