Allow Fedora ELN SIG (FAS: eln-sig ) to create dynamic sidetags with eln as a base tag.
eln-sig
This is needed to implement rebuild process for Rawhide updates, which require bootstrapping.
Currently it fails with
$ fedpkg request-side-tag --base-tag eln Could not execute request_side_tag: policy violation (sidetag)
By 2020 Oct 1st.
CC @sgallagh @tdawson
To provide a little more context, there are two problems we want to solve with this:
We will track the creation of side-tags based off Rawhide and automatically create an equivalent ELN side-tag to mirror the builds there so they occur in the same order. This will help with bootstrapping and dependency loops.
Sometimes we end up with a situation where a build succeeds on Rawhide but fails on ELN. Subsequent builds in Rawhide of dependent packages may also fail. We need to be able to create on-demand side-tags to rebuild those dependent packages once we get a working version of the dependency in.
I have no problem enabling eln side tags.
One issue here tho is that koji has 0 idea about fas groups, it has it's own users and permissions. So, options:
just allow anyone to do them. Do we think this would be misused? fedora ones are currently open and it's been fine.
This is probably fine.
Metadata Update from @mohanboddu: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on Assignee (was: Needs Review) - Issue tagged with: low-trouble, medium-gain, ops
https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/259 should fix this.
Done! Let us know if you have any issues with it.
Metadata Update from @kevin: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
fedpkg request-side-tag --base-tag eln is still failing with Could not execute request_side_tag: policy violation (sidetag)
fedpkg request-side-tag --base-tag eln
Could not execute request_side_tag: policy violation (sidetag)
Can someone look into this again, please? We're trying to get a side-tag created for new GCC 11.
Try eln-build? it might be confused about the base tag there since eln inherits from f34...
You are correct, that was it. Thank you.
Log in to comment on this ticket.