DAOS-17472 build: Promote rpms to separate repos #475
Conversation
Change-Id: Iafe3932bbb7f2cfd5c5d2695cece9fa051130391 Signed-off-by: Jeff Olivier <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Ie77cb83f6aada50b9812809d233dbccabdb805a2 Signed-off-by: Jeff Olivier <[email protected]>
Change-Id: I8591a3b330ff624a03fba5fd7ca30d60688f9185 Signed-off-by: Jeff Olivier <[email protected]>
vars/buildRpmPost.groovy
Outdated
| if (config.get('new_rpm', false)) { | ||
| publishToRepository product: product, | ||
| format: repo_format, | ||
| maturity: 'stable', | ||
| tech: target, | ||
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target | ||
| } else { | ||
| if (fileExists('artifacts/' + target + '/deps')) { | ||
| publishToRepository product: 'deps', | ||
| format: repo_format, | ||
| maturity: 'stable', | ||
| tech: target, | ||
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target + '/deps' | ||
| } | ||
| publishToRepository product: product, | ||
| format: repo_format, | ||
| maturity: 'stable', | ||
| tech: target, | ||
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target + '/daos' | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this last publishToRepository use repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target such that the new daos RPMs are located in the same path as the old ones are currently? Assuming yes, then can't his just simplify down to:
| if (config.get('new_rpm', false)) { | |
| publishToRepository product: product, | |
| format: repo_format, | |
| maturity: 'stable', | |
| tech: target, | |
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target | |
| } else { | |
| if (fileExists('artifacts/' + target + '/deps')) { | |
| publishToRepository product: 'deps', | |
| format: repo_format, | |
| maturity: 'stable', | |
| tech: target, | |
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target + '/deps' | |
| } | |
| publishToRepository product: product, | |
| format: repo_format, | |
| maturity: 'stable', | |
| tech: target, | |
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target + '/daos' | |
| } | |
| if (fileExists('artifacts/' + target + '/deps')) { | |
| publishToRepository product: 'deps', | |
| format: repo_format, | |
| maturity: 'stable', | |
| tech: target, | |
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target + '/deps' | |
| } | |
| publishToRepository product: product, | |
| format: repo_format, | |
| maturity: 'stable', | |
| tech: target, | |
| repo_dir: 'artifacts/' + target |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've put the daos rpms in daos subdirectory. I don't think they can be in a higher level directory from 'deps' as I think that would cause deps to be pulled into daos.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could do deps/ instead to avoid this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I think this is better. Though now I need to refresh my other PR again. I discovered that it was not executing the code correctly as I had the if backwards
Change-Id: I328096c68ae698029681dd6cf3a833d0011fdfc6 Signed-off-by: Jeff Olivier <[email protected]>
Change-Id: I57921424330ebb1d5d8d1f01f47ec42a2c17ffbb Signed-off-by: Jeff Olivier <[email protected]>
|
If someone can review (and land this) it would unblock my other PR, which I think is doing what is desired now (should only build dependencies if there are no RPMs with the same version already built). |
When building the new style RPMs, we need to publish dependencies to a different repo.
system-pipeline-lib uses the "product" and chooses the repo based on whether daos is in the name
so use this fact to publish dependencies, if built, to the dependency repo.
Change-Id: Iafe3932bbb7f2cfd5c5d2695cece9fa051130391