roll-out of alma8-based infrastructure (aka centos 8)

[beckermr]

This issue tracks centos 8 implementation PRs

• build sysroots from alma 8
  • This one is subtle since we need to weigh down the newer sysroots on ppc64le / aarch64 / s390x using track_features.
  • We likely will also need the current repodata hack package on ppc64le / aarch64 / s390x.
  • To use the curr repodata hack package, we'll need to patch the cos7 sysroots to depend on it.
  • rebuild current cos7 sysroots with current repodata hack (ENH add current repodata hack on non-x86_64 for 2.17 in prep for 2.28 linux-sysroot-feedstock#46)
  • submit repodata patch to add current repodata data hack to cos7 sysroots (ENH add repodata patch to make sure 2.17 sysroots are in current repo… conda-forge-repodata-patches-feedstock#441)
  • add new sysroots with track_features (ENH glibc 2.28 from alma8 linux-sysroot-feedstock#47)
• build docker images
  • ENH Add AlmaLinux 8 based image docker-images#235
  • Provide linux-anvil-cuda on x64 with RHEL 8, consolidate image names, distinguish distro baseline in tag docker-images#291
• build CDTs from alma 8
  • make sure cdt_name is conda_2_28 just conda now
  • decide which cdts to build (c.f. figure out which CDTs we can drop for cos8, maybe drop them all? cdt-builds#66)
  • Add first batch of alma8 CDTs cdt-builds#70
• Use alma9 images on linux, while staying on 2.17 sysroot conda-forge-pinning-feedstock#6283
  • move to alma9 by default; enable choice through DEFAULT_LINUX_VERSION conda-forge-pinning-feedstock#6626
• adjust staged recipes for alma8
• test compilers

The alma 8 repo is https://repo.almalinux.org/almalinux/8.7/BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/ etc.

[jaimergp]

xrefs:

• CentOS 8 #1432
• This week's meeting notes

[jaimergp]

What I understood was:

• We will build the new sysroots from Alma 8
• Alma 8 happens to use Glibc 2.28
• manylinux_2_28 is also derived from Alma 8, so that's the match?
• Anaconda versions their sysroots with the glibc version, and we do too?
• The cosN (CentOs version N) prefixes we had in some places will be replaced by conda_X_YZ (with X.YZ being the glibc version)

And maybe I am missing something else, but we can probably merge the discussion with the CentOS 8 thread mentioned in my comment above.

[beckermr]

Someone, I think @isuruf, mentioned listing versions for other things. libm maybe?

[h-vetinari]

The cosN (CentOs version N) prefixes we had in some places will be replaced by conda_X_YZ (with X.YZ being the glibc version)

Manylinux uses glibc major.minor for its versioning, and I think it's good to match that (I think in the core call the mood was that conda_2_28 would be the best option).

That said, not least after the ill-fated Debian-based manylinux_2_24, in effect it's been just a way to encode the RHEL major version:

manylinux	glibc	RHEL
manylinux1	2.5	5
manylinux2010	2.12	6
manylinux2014	2.17	7
manylinux_2_28	2.28	8

That's because manylinux cannot bring its own updated compiler stack along and so is dependent on having the devtoolset backports. Perhaps keeping RHEL X as a base (through one of its ABI-compatible derivatives like Alma,Rocky,UBI) solves the other versioning questions, even if we call it conda_2_28?

[beckermr]

Yes. We plan to keep alma8 as the base.

[isuruf]

One plus about just using conda instead of conda_2_28, is that the user does not have to deal with cdt_name in the recipes. They can just use the versioning of the sysroot and the cdt_name will become obsolete.

[beckermr]

We'll need to tuck the cdt name in the CDTs somewhere maybe? Idk if the CDT package names will conflict or not.

[beckermr]

Can you send an example recipe where people are dealing directly with cdt_name? I thought the jinja2 function took care of that.

[isuruf]

For eg: https://github.com/conda-forge/qt-main-feedstock/blob/main/conda-forge.yml#L18-L19

[isuruf]

On the other hand, that line in conda-forge.yml serves two purposes. Setting cdt_name and the docker image name.

[beckermr]

Hmmmm. Being able to at least match cdts to the os for our docker containers is inherently useful possibly? This would argue for using conda_2_28 in both places.

[isuruf]

Being able to at least match cdts to the os for our docker containers is inherently useful possibly?

That's not really needed. We use cos6 CDTs in cos7 docker images.

[beckermr]

I'm not saying we alway have to have them matched. I'm saying that using the same notation in both places is helpful.

[jakirkham]

Would it help to start a PR for Docker images? Or are we not ready for that yet?

[beckermr]

Go for it but I don't expect it to be merged anytime soon.

[jakirkham]

Gotcha, what do we see as the required steps before they are merged? Asking since they wouldn't be integrated anywhere by just publishing the image. Or is there something else I'm missing?

[beckermr]

I am not sure what goes in them. If we need the sysroots to put in them, then we'd need that. If they don't have anything special, then we can just build it.

[jakirkham]

Gotcha

Don't think the sysroot is needed

The images cache the compiler packages as a convenience, but that can be disabled temporarily or it can use older compilers for now. Not too worried about this

Can't think of anything else of concern

If something comes up when we start working on them, we can always discuss

[jakirkham]

Started adding an image in PR ( conda-forge/docker-images#235 )

[jakirkham]

From Matt, we need to update os_version for conda_2_28. Also there is a corresponding way to do this in staged-recipes

xref: conda-forge/conda-smithy#1434

[h-vetinari]

adjust smithy to allow for easy alma8 config

What's the intention here? Being able to switch the image? (I'm asking because I'd be willing to give it a shot...)

FWIW, the current 2.17 setup doesn't need any smithy interaction, it's enough to just add sysroot_linux-64 2.17 # [linux64] to the build dependencies. AFAIR that's because we switched the images to cos7, while still using the cos6 sysroot by default. This setup was the result of a bunch of discussions around resolver errors and other issues with older images if there are packages built against the newer sysroot (for details see this summary of the very clever setup proposed by Isuru);

Is there a reason we couldn't switch the images to alma8, but keep the sysroot at cos6 (with opt-in upgrade to cos7 & alma8)?

[beckermr]

There is no reason we couldn't bump images. This may break builds using yum requirements if the packages have changed names or conventions upstream.

[h-vetinari]

This may break builds using yum requirements if the packages have changed names or conventions upstream.

According to this search, there's around 170 recipes that use yum_requirements.txt (for the most part, it's mesa, x11, etc.). I guess it would be possible to audit those for any name-changes, however, given that Alma 8 intends to be bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL 8, I strongly doubt that packages would changes names TBH.

[beckermr]

Fair point. I'm happy with simply bumping the default image.

[h-vetinari]

There seems to be something going awry with the new repodata hack. I'm getting Alma 8 kernel headers together with the COS 7 sysroot on aarch:

The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED [selection]:

    _sysroot_linux-aarch64_curr_repodata_hack: 4-h57d6b7b_13             conda-forge
    kernel-headers_linux-aarch64:              4.18.0-h5b4a56d_13        conda-forge  # <- kernel version in RHEL 8 !!
    sysroot_linux-aarch64:                     2.17-h5b4a56d_13          conda-forge  # <- glibc version in RHEL 7

Interestingly, this is not happening on PPC, where I get:

The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED [selection]:

    _sysroot_linux-ppc64le_curr_repodata_hack: 4-h43410cf_13             conda-forge
    kernel-headers_linux-ppc64le:              3.10.0-h23d7e6c_13        conda-forge  # <- kernel version in RHEL 7
    sysroot_linux-ppc64le:                     2.17-h23d7e6c_13          conda-forge  # <- glibc version in RHEL 7

[beckermr]

What makes you think it is the repodata hack?

[h-vetinari]

What makes you think it is the repodata hack?

It must be related to the sysroot, where the kernel-headers are built, and I couldn't see a difference between aarch/ppc in conda-forge/linux-sysroot-feedstock#46. Both variants are pulling in crdh 4, but looking a bit closer, that divergence between aarch & ppc goes back much further. Seems we've been using newer kernel headers on aarch since conda-forge/linux-sysroot-feedstock#15 (corresponding to linux version in RHEL 8, but apparently still being downloaded through CentOS 7 repos¹). Seems it's not critical.

Footnotes

1. though that PR doesn't document the rationale, so I can't really say why it diverged at all ↩

[jakirkham]

This is worth a read

https://almalinux.org/blog/impact-of-rhel-changes/

[beckermr]

Yes but see the list above. We are trying to get rid of as many CDTs as we can.

[h-vetinari]

We have merged conda-forge/docker-images#242 recently. What are some next steps here? Are we ready to tackle the first CDTs (modulo conda-forge/cdt-builds#66)?

[beckermr]

We agreed to get rid of as many CDTs as we could. So that's the next step. To go through them and figure out what we can build ourselves.

[jakirkham]

Maybe an earlier step is just getting a list of CDTs we use so we can search conda-forge for fuzzy matches

[jaimergp]

xref conda-forge/cdt-builds#66