What to do with SCLo SIG content that is EOL

We discussed this on last SCLo SIG sync-up meeting -- unlike packages
from CentOS base, SCL packages are not moving to Vault repos at this
point, although some of them are already EOL and not getting any
updates. A question was raised whether such packages should be moved to

Comparing to CentOS base packages, SCL is different in packages naming
-- version of the stack is part of the package name. That means, that
once e.g. devtoolset-3 got EOL, yum won't update them ever, even though
there are some newer versions available (those use different name though)..

Moving such packages from mirrors to Vault would basically mean some
setups will get broken for users.

It's understandable, that some users are still fine using EOL packages,
but they would need to change repos to the Vault url.

What do you think -- should we start moving EOL SCLs into Vault? How big
problem would that be for you?



Re: What to do with SCLo SIG content that is EOL

By Johnny Hughes at 10/13/2017 - 12:36

On 10/12/2017 01:23 PM, Honza Horak wrote:
The way we currently handle SIG content right now, it is placed in the
main CentOS (and soon to be altarch) tree at:


the /7/ is basically always the latest point release. So it was
7.3.1611 and it is now 7.4.1708.

Right now, the movement of things to vault happens after a point
release. So the 7.3.1611 tree will move to vault (both altarch/ and
centos/ branches) sometime after the point release. Usually a couple
weeks, but the 32 bit Intel kernel and grub2 made it take some time and
the removal of the 7.3.1611 tree will happen this weekend.

I think the easiest process for SIGs would be this (If we are going to
continue to do 7.3.1611 and 7.4.1708 repos, etc.):

We currently have to copy SIG content from old release (7.3.1611) to the
new release (7.4.1708). That is the perfect time to NOT move things you
want to EOL. They will stay in the 7.3.1611 tree and only the things
you want to support would move to the 7.4.1708 tree.

If you currently look in vault, under 7.1.1503, 7.2.1511 or 7.3.1611 ..
for example :

<a href="" title=""></a>

<a href="" title=""></a>

So, in the 7.1.1503 dir .. that is the storage things that were in
7.1.1503 at the end of the release .. the day that RHEL 7.2 got
released. All those dirs were copied over as is to our 7.2.1511
release. If we wanted to EOL (just as an example) gluster-3.6/ , then
we could just not copy it over to 7.2.1511 at all. It would then only
appear in vault in the 7.1.1503 dir .. which is where you want people to
get it if they need it (since we did not copy it to 7.2.1511 when we
released that). You could then release a new centos-release-gluster36
file that changes the repo to

<a href="" title=""></a>

People who choose to try and run gluster-3.6 would need to grab that RPM
and use that repo. Everyone one else needs to upgrade.

We currently produce, in our CentOS-Release RPM, a repo file called

If you look at that repo, you will see that it provides all the Base,
Updates, Extras, etc. etc. repos for all old versions and they are
turned off by default.

Anyway .. that is how it works now. If we need a different process ..
where, for example all the SIGs are in their own spot, so a live and a
vault area for each repo and we link those into releases. So, our live
7.4.1708 would link into the live SIG area .. and all the trees on vault
for centos don't contain SIG content at all, it lives in it's own vault
area not tied directly to 7.0.1406, or 7.1.1511, or 7.2.1611 .. etc.

I think the easiest thing would be to leave them tied to specific
releases (because that is what it was built against, and you will not
have rebased libraries issues, like a new nss or openssl from a newer
release). So I think the easiest thing is just to take out the older
SIG content at point release time.

Johnny Hughes

Re: What to do with SCLo SIG content that is EOL

By Pavel Valena at 10/13/2017 - 07:49

Do I understand it correctly that it'll be impossible to install the package in case it's moved to Vault? Isn't that actually what we want?

Random thought: what about using Obsoletes (for EOL only)?


Re: What to do with SCLo SIG content that is EOL

By Trevor Hemsley at 10/13/2017 - 07:55

On 13/10/17 12:49, Pavel Valena wrote:
I think it should be the same process used for EOL CentOS releases.
Content should be moved to vault and made as difficult to get to as
possible while still allowing it to be accessed if really needed.

We shouldn't facilitate easy use of EOL and possibly insecure software
packages.  Ideally that move should be done when the SCL goes EOL not
waiting for the next point release of the CentOS version it goes along
with. That could mean a whole year (7.2 -> 7.3 was exactly a year) where
potentially insecure software was available for easy installation. Or in
a worse case, if it was for CentOS 6, will we ever see a 6.10 in which
case waiting for the next point release will never happen.


Re: What to do with SCLo SIG content that is EOL

By Trevor Hemsley at 10/13/2017 - 08:35

On 13/10/17 12:55, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
Some numbers to go with this so we can see the scope of the problem.

I went through the list on
<a href="" title=""></a> and
used yum list on each of the collections that are listed as "EOL
since..." (mostly 2016) and got a list of the packages that belong in
EOL collections. Stripping out the yum headings etc from that list
leaves me with a file containing 1740 lines. There are some packages
listed by yum that are too long and thus spill the version/repo name
onto the next line so that isn't quite 1740 packages but it must be
around the 1700 mark. From yum repolist, that shows me there are
5899+444 = 6343 packages in the 2 SCL repos so over 25% of packages in
those 2 repos are currently unsupported and EOL.

That's an awful lot of unsupported software that's currently too easy to