.zuul: update ansible-version to v11 by TristanCacqueray · Pull Request #1846 · containers/toolbox

TristanCacqueray · 2026-10-05T14:02:33Z

This change bumps ansible-core to 2.18, which is now necessary for coreos-next. This is similar to #1824

Rolv-Apneseth · 2026-10-05T14:10:14Z

    name: system-test-fedora-coreos-next-commands-options
    parent: system-test-fedora-coreos
    description: Run Toolbx's commands-options system tests in Fedora CoreOS next
+    ansible-version: 11


Is there any downside to having this defined for all coreos jobs, not just the coreos-next ones? If not we could have just the 1 line in system-test-fedora-coreos

I think that should be fine, but that's temporary, the next update Zuul brings ansible version 11 by default, see: https://zuul-ci.org/docs/zuul/latest/releasenotes.html#upgrade-notes

We recently updated our operator and we'll rollout the latest Zuul shortly ( https://softwarefactory-project.io/r/c/software-factory/sf-operator/+/35317 )

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-10-05T14:49:45Z

Build failed.
https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/local/buildset/7a73d95a4c88421abf5e5ebca206b4c1

Rolv-Apneseth · 2026-10-05T14:58:07Z

And now looks like we have some packaging/repo errors.

Synchronize glibc to repo version for gcc/glibc-devel compatibility:

error: No matches for 'glibc' in repo 'updates'

Synchronize shadow-utils to repo version for shadow-utils-subid-devel compatibility:

error: No matches for 'shadow-utils' in repo 'updates'

Install RPM packages:

error: Could not depsolve transaction; 1 problem detected:
 Problem: libgcc-16.2.1-2.fc45.1.i686 from fedora does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package gcc-16.2.1-2.fc45.1.x86_64 from fedora requires libgcc >= 16.2.1-2.fc45.1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both libgcc-16.2.1-2.fc45.1.x86_64 from fedora and libgcc-16.2.1-2.fc45.x86_64 from @System
  - conflicting requests

And a failure in ubuntu-tests:

not ok 184 network: DNS inside Arch Linux in 738ms
# tags: arch-fedora runtime-environment
# (from function `assert_line' in file test/system/libs/bats-assert/src/assert.bash, line 488,
#  in test file test/system/203-network.bats, line 283)
#   `assert_line --index 0 "$ipv4_addr"' failed
#
# -- line differs --
# index    : 0
# expected : 193.0.14.129
# actual   :
# --
#

Rolv-Apneseth · 2026-10-06T13:55:26Z

recheck

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-10-06T14:44:35Z

Build failed.
https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/local/buildset/5ec4d398abc34a0c92ddf2702a0ae2e1

TristanCacqueray · 2026-10-07T14:50:45Z

The NODE_FAILURE are being fixed on our side, but the glibc error seems legit: looks like the coreos repos are missing key packages, or maybe we are missing a repofile?

This is similar to commit 93f882c and is needed because the 'next' stream of Fedora CoreOS was rebased to Fedora 45 [1]. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/coreos@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/QG22WVLEPA5ES6XRAX2Q5JSUORFUJBRD/ containers#1846 Signed-off-by: Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu@redhat.com>

debarshiray

Thanks for tracking this down, @TristanCacqueray ! I took the liberty to add the ID of the previous commit in the Git commit message.

debarshiray · 2026-10-08T12:06:49Z

The NODE_FAILURE are being fixed on our side, but the glibc error seems legit: looks like the coreos repos are missing key packages, or maybe we are missing a repofile?

Let's get this merged once the CI finishes. It's a legit fix in itself, even if it doesn't solve everything.

debarshiray · 2026-10-08T12:10:26Z

And a failure in ubuntu-tests:

not ok 184 network: DNS inside Arch Linux in 738ms
# tags: arch-fedora runtime-environment
# (from function `assert_line' in file test/system/libs/bats-assert/src/assert.bash, line 488,
#  in test file test/system/203-network.bats, line 283)
#   `assert_line --index 0 "$ipv4_addr"' failed
#
# -- line differs --
# index    : 0
# expected : 193.0.14.129
# actual   :
# --
#

We used to see this once in a while in the past. I hadn't seen it in a while, and was beginning to hope that this was fixed by commit e13a58c76e64abc2. :(

Rolv-Apneseth · 2026-10-08T13:27:27Z

The NODE_FAILURE are being fixed on our side, but the glibc error seems legit: looks like the coreos repos are missing key packages, or maybe we are missing a repofile?

Yes, sorry, I'm looking into it just haven't had much time. Using the updates-testing repo seems to work (see output on solvables below), so it's just something about how the repos for next are currently setup (I'm assuming because of branching). I'll get back to you once I have more details / understand it better as I'm not very familiar with that side of things.

rpm-md repo 'updates-testing' (cached); generated: 2026-10-05T01:50:59Z solvables: 12737
rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2018-02-20T19:18:14Z solvables: 0

centosinfra-prod-github-app · 2026-10-08T14:25:41Z

Build failed.
https://gateway-cloud-softwarefactory.apps.ocp.cloud.ci.centos.org/zuul/t/local/buildset/8b59d98afe5d4ed9ac05cc1b1fade020

Rolv-Apneseth · 2026-10-08T15:19:23Z

The NODE_FAILURE are being fixed on our side, but the glibc error seems legit: looks like the coreos repos are missing key packages, or maybe we are missing a repofile?

Yes, sorry, I'm looking into it just haven't had much time. Using the updates-testing repo seems to work (see output on solvables below), so it's just something about how the repos for next are currently setup (I'm assuming because of branching). I'll get back to you once I have more details / understand it better as I'm not very familiar with that side of things.
rpm-md repo 'updates-testing' (cached); generated: 2026-10-05T01:50:59Z solvables: 12737
rpm-md repo 'updates' (cached); generated: 2018-02-20T19:18:14Z solvables: 0

Does seem like this is the issue. While next is pointing to F45, updates are all going to repo=updates-testing, so we need to pull packages from there. Working on a fix in #1847, but we should merge this first.

debarshiray · 2026-10-08T17:12:28Z

Thanks for all the effort, @Rolv-Apneseth @TristanCacqueray !

TristanCacqueray requested a review from debarshiray as a code owner October 5, 2026 14:02

TristanCacqueray mentioned this pull request Oct 5, 2026

Prepare 0.4 #1845

Open

TristanCacqueray force-pushed the bump-ansible branch from 5fa92c1 to e3d0d81 Compare October 5, 2026 14:03

Rolv-Apneseth reviewed Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Rolv-Apneseth approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

debarshiray force-pushed the bump-ansible branch from e3d0d81 to cdecacb Compare October 8, 2026 12:02

debarshiray approved these changes Oct 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Rolv-Apneseth mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2026

playbooks/depencies-fedora-coreos: add a fallback to the updates-testing repo #1847

Open

debarshiray merged commit cdecacb into containers:main Oct 8, 2026
1 of 3 checks passed

Conversation

TristanCacqueray commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Rolv-Apneseth Oct 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TristanCacqueray Oct 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Rolv-Apneseth commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Rolv-Apneseth commented Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

TristanCacqueray commented Oct 7, 2026

Uh oh!

debarshiray left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

debarshiray commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

debarshiray commented Oct 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Rolv-Apneseth commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

centosinfra-prod-github-app Bot commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Rolv-Apneseth commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

debarshiray commented Oct 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

debarshiray commented Oct 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading