Deprecate EL6?

I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be
documented in the 1.12 release notes.

This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly
1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS
using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.

Any objections?

··· -- Dominic Cleal dominic@cleal.org

This would be a huge help to Pulp. We are starting work on a switch from
mongodb to postgres.

In particular, we would need to use postgres 9.y as a minimum, because that
is the requirement for supported django versions. It would make the most
sense to establish that as a minimum for all the projects in the katello
stack. I was going to start a conversation here today about options for
doing that, but dropping deployment support for EL6 definitely solves it.
Otherwise, we would all need to use SCLs to get a more recent postgres on
EL6.

Pulp is starting to work on using SCLs for a variety of things on EL6
including python 2.7, postgres, and likely other libraries. It would be
much easier to just not deploy on EL6. It would be very helpful to us to
make that decision quickly, so we can stop working on adding SCLs.

Michael

··· On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 5:26:44 AM UTC-4, Dominic Cleal wrote: > > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. > > Any objections? > > -- > Dominic Cleal > dom...@cleal.org >

Would this affect both foreman and the smart-proxy?

··· On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. > > Any objections?

> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be
> documented in the 1.12 release notes.
>
> This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly
> 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS
> using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.
>
> Any objections?

That would mean around Q4 2016 we would drop it, right? 'End of
production 1' for EL6 should happen Q2 2016 [1]. This means Foreman 1.12
dependencies will likely not be upgraded between 2016-2020, so it's
safe to stop EL6 releases there. If other projects respect the
timeframe, only minor releases of Foreman dependencies should be
released after 1.12.

No objection from me.

What are the issues Ruby 1.8.7/1.9.3 support is causing?

[1] - https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

··· On 05/10, Dominic Cleal wrote:


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Daniel Lobato Garcia

@dLobatog
blog.daniellobato.me
daniellobato.me

GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato

Given there have been no objections (rather the opposite) and EL6 is
entering production phase 2 I think it's safe to deprecate it.

··· On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.

Hi,

··· On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.

If EL6 support can not be dropped at this time, it’s probably worth to
target SCLing of foreman-proxy and foreman-installer for 1.13, which
should be a much smaller problem now, as the Puppet 4 / AIO changes did
land in both.

Regards

Michael Moll

If Foreman will drop support for EL6, it might worth providing some hints
on how to migrate Foreman from one node to another, or refreshing existing
documentation regarding migration if it exists.

Also, keep in mind that this work would happen at the same time that many
Foreman users migrate from Puppet 3.8 to Puppet 4. That's two largish,
forced migrations at the same time. We've been holding off on our Puppet 4
upgrade until there is support in Foreman 1.12, and I suspect other admins
are in the same boat.

-= Stefan

··· On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 2:26:44 AM UTC-7, Dominic Cleal wrote: > > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. > > Any objections? > > -- > Dominic Cleal > dom...@cleal.org >

Something to bear in mind is that Amazon Linux is based on EL6. My Foreman
server is running on Ubuntu so I'm assuming I'll be unaffected but people
running on Amazon Linux will

··· On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 10:26:44 UTC+1, Dominic Cleal wrote: > > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be > documented in the 1.12 release notes. > > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. > > Any objections? > > -- > Dominic Cleal > dom...@cleal.org >

I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos
shortly too.

··· On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote: > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

Yes, all core packages/subprojects - namely the five top-level projects,
Foreman, smart proxy, installer, Hammer and SELinux.

··· On 10/05/16 10:44, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: >> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have >> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be >> documented in the 1.12 release notes. >> >> This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly >> 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS >> using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. >> >> Any objections? > > Would this affect both foreman and the smart-proxy?


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

Only minor issues such as:

  • reduces pinning/selecting available gem dependencies (e.g. in smart
    proxy, kafo) for 1.8.7 compatibility
  • ditto, with installer modules, which are beginning to drop support
  • some gems may be required at multiple versions on EL6 (e.g.
    rest-client 1.6 for 1.8.7, or rest-client 1.8 for 1.9+ with #13698)
    which is trickier to package
  • one less OS to package for reduces packaging work
  • reduces the size of our test matrixes, freeing up Jenkins and Travis
    CI capacity (module tests typically take many times longer)
··· On 10/05/16 13:32, Daniel Lobato Garcia wrote: > On 05/10, Dominic Cleal wrote: >> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have >> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be >> documented in the 1.12 release notes. >> >> This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly >> 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS >> using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. >> >> Any objections? > > That would mean around Q4 2016 we would drop it, right? 'End of > production 1' for EL6 should happen Q2 2016 [1]. This means Foreman 1.12 > dependencies will likely not be upgraded between 2016-2020, so it's > safe to stop EL6 releases there. If other projects respect the > timeframe, only minor releases of Foreman dependencies should be > released after 1.12. > > No objection from me. > > What are the issues Ruby 1.8.7/1.9.3 support is causing?


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

I've added it to the 1.12 documentation task list:

··· On 12/05/16 09:16, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: >> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have >> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be >> documented in the 1.12 release notes. >> >> This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly >> 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS >> using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6. > > Given there have been no objections (rather the opposite) and EL6 is > entering production phase 2 I think it's safe to deprecate it.


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

>
> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be
> > documented in the 1.12 release notes.
> >
> > This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly
> > 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS
> > using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.
>
> Given there have been no objections (rather the opposite) and EL6 is
> entering production phase 2 I think it's safe to deprecate it.
>

I'm on mixed feelings on this one, do we have any metric for el6 vs el7
current usage?

Ohad

> –
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

··· On May 12, 2016 11:16 AM, "Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden" < ewoud@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote: > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Hi,

··· On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:05:37PM -0700, Stefan Lasiewski wrote: > Also, keep in mind that this work would happen at the same time that many > Foreman users migrate from Puppet 3.8 to Puppet 4. That's two largish, > forced migrations at the same time. We've been holding off on our Puppet 4 > upgrade until there is support in Foreman 1.12, and I suspect other admins > are in the same boat.

1.12 is still supported on RHEL6 just fine, so there’s no problem to
update Foreman to 1.12 with Puppet 3.x and then update Puppet to 4.x.

Regards

Michael Moll

We don't support Amazon Linux at the moment and as far as I'm aware, it
doesn't work right now. The OS is so far diverged from its EL6 upstream
at this point that it would need its own packaging if we did (e.g. the
Ruby packages were replaced with different versions.)

··· On 14/06/16 09:57, Paul Smyth wrote: > Something to bear in mind is that Amazon Linux is based on EL6. My > Foreman server is running on Ubuntu so I'm assuming I'll be unaffected > but people running on Amazon Linux will


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.
>
> I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos

shortly too.
>

I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some further
discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a warning
similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the conversation
herein where there was equal sides for and against this change. I do not
consider the line in the release notes sufficient for this kind of change
given the scale and scope it imposes. The release notes also do not
indicate which release users should prepare for this change, simply that it
will be that way in future releases. We have given users no major warnings
nor reiterated this point to allow them to begin considering how to
transition. We did not provide a transition document for users to consider
during the deprecation period. From a development stand point, there has
been no collaboration to coordinate all the various changes that have to be
made to support this change. I'm afraid we will be doing some of our users
and developers a disservice due to the feeling of abruptness of this
without sufficient "loud" warnings and supporting documentation to given
them time to prepare for migration. I like to believe users prefer to use
the latest and greatest (and that we should be encouraging the use of) and
we owe it to them to ensure we provide the smoothest runway possible to get
them there. I am thinking about the Katello part of the community here as
well which is a valid aspect of the ecosystem given the user base and how
we integrate with Foreman core and a variety of plugins.

Eric

··· On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal wrote: > On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering
Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University

The warnings section of the release notes state that EL6 packages will
likely not be provided in 1.13, but I'll update them now to state
clearly that they won't, with pointers to our existing migration
information. This can certainly be expanded with more help if somebody
wishes to write it, and there's plenty of time to do that in.

I don't think I've done anything differently to previous OS deprecations
and removals, which seem to have gone without incident.

··· On 26/07/16 14:13, Eric D Helms wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal > wrote: > > On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote: > > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have > > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. > > I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos > > shortly too. > > > I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some > further discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a > warning similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the > conversation herein where there was equal sides for and against this > change. I do not consider the line in the release notes sufficient for > this kind of change given the scale and scope it imposes. The release > notes also do not indicate which release users should prepare for this > change, simply that it will be that way in future releases.


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org

>
>
>
>> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
>> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.
>>
>> I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos
>
> shortly too.
>>
>
> I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some further
> discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a warning
> similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the conversation
> herein where there was equal sides for and against this change. I do not
> consider the line in the release notes sufficient for this kind of change
> given the scale and scope it imposes. The release notes also do not
> indicate which release users should prepare for this change, simply that it
> will be that way in future releases. We have given users no major warnings
> nor reiterated this point to allow them to begin considering how to
> transition. We did not provide a transition document for users to consider
> during the deprecation period. From a development stand point, there has
> been no collaboration to coordinate all the various changes that have to be
> made to support this change. I'm afraid we will be doing some of our users
> and developers a disservice due to the feeling of abruptness of this
> without sufficient "loud" warnings and supporting documentation to given
> them time to prepare for migration. I like to believe users prefer to use
> the latest and greatest (and that we should be encouraging the use of) and
> we owe it to them to ensure we provide the smoothest runway possible to get
> them there. I am thinking about the Katello part of the community here as
> well which is a valid aspect of the ecosystem given the user base and how
> we integrate with Foreman core and a variety of plugins.
>
>
+1 I believe 1.14 is a more suitable candidates. mostly after having a
proper backup/restore procedure to migrate foreman, proxy and plugins.

Ohad

··· On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Eric D Helms wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal wrote: >> On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:

Eric


Dominic Cleal
dominic@cleal.org


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering
Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Purely anecdotal I know, but I don't know of any new installations going on
RHEL 6. I did run an Foreman server on 6 at my last place, but that was an
early install before RHEL 7 was released and we migrated to 7 as soon as it
was signed off for use.

And I sure don't know anywhere installing Satellite 6 on RHEL 6.

Logs from your yum repos would shed a little light?

From a users perspective, I'd say you would be OK to drop 6.

Package download stats are very unreliable, due to caching, mirroring,
NAT, etc. That said, I have some cached data for about 2 weeks of April,
and here's the brakedown for the versions we currently support (this is
gathered from the url of the downloaded package, broken down for
foreman-<version>.<os>.noarch.rpm

Downloads of foreman core, by version

··· On 13 May 2016 at 10:02, Duncan Innes wrote:

Logs from your yum repos would shed a little light?


1.11.1.el7 | 973
1.11.1.el6 | 462
1.11.1.fc21 | 13
-> 32% EL6

1.11.0.el6 | 1692
1.11.0.el7 | 796
1.11.0.fc21 | 15
-> 32% EL6

1.10.3.el7 | 1583
1.10.3.el6 | 199
-> 11% EL6

1.10.2.el7 | 47
1.10.2.el6 | 22
-> 32% EL6

1.10.1.el7 | 51
1.10.1.el6 | 20
-> 28% EL6

1.10.0.el7 | 207
1.10.0.el6 | 82
-> 28% EL6

Caveats are the caching/mirroring notes above, plus this is point-in-time
downloads and thus won’t show the number of people already on EL6/7 who
didn’t download in this period.

I can easily regenerate my cached data from the http download logs if
people wish a larger size / different date range. Logs generally go back 1
month before being logrotated out.