Drop support for RHEL 7 / CentOS 7 #11246
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
release-note-action-required
|
Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
VannTen
force-pushed
the
cleanup/rm_redhat_like_7
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e28db24
to
58e53f2
Compare
|
HI @VannTen Although Centos 7 will be EOL on 2024-06-30, Centos 8 has EOL on 2021-12-31. 🤣 Centos 7 is the last version of Centos's Long-Life Cycle maintenance version. Although there are some options to replace it, many users still use Centos 7, which is still widely used. Data of Cento's market share(I cannot find the accurate statistics for Centos 7): So, a good strategy for Kubespray is to give Centos7 users time to change the OS. I can also help maintain the Centos 7 part of Kubespray. We can decide to drop the support of Cenots7 in 2025. What do you think about that? :-) |
|
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:49:47PM -0700, Kay Yan wrote:
HI @VannTen
Although Centos 7 will be EOL on 2024-06-30, Centos 8 has EOL on 2021-12-31. 🤣
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#Versioning_and_releases.
Well, we can drop it as well, then. Though I think RHEL 8 probably share some stuff with CentOS 8, so it's probably not going to be as much of a gain.
So, a good strategy for Kubespray is to give Centos7 users time to change the OS. I can also help maintain the Centos 7 part of Kubespray. We can decide to drop the support of Cenots7 in 2025.
I'm strongly against maintaining support for OS past their own EOL. Users don't have to switch right away, only before upgrading to 2.26.
Besides, if we were to push until 2025, what date would we choose ? 30-06-2024 being the official EOL for CentOS 7 and RHEL 7 makes it a natural switch point, IMO
Not that this is not just to drop support for the sake of dropping support, it imposes a signifiant cost on new development as mentioned in the PR description.
|
|
There is a discuss in k/k, ref: kubernetes/kubernetes#116799. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
PR needs rebase. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
I agree with you. Kubespray needs to drop the support of Centos 7. |
VannTen
force-pushed
the
cleanup/rm_redhat_like_7
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e9cff20
to
461ea38
Compare
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
ok-to-test
VannTen
force-pushed
the
cleanup/rm_redhat_like_7
branch
from
461ea38
to
f5c6730
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
needs-rebase
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/work-in-progress
systemd handles missing unit by ignoring the dependency so we don't need to template them.
- remove ref in kubespray roles - move CI from centos 7 to 8 - remove docs related to centos7
Only used for RHEL 7 and CentOS 7
VannTen
force-pushed
the
cleanup/rm_redhat_like_7
branch
from
f5c6730
to
4b24562
Compare
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: VannTen The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
| @@ -1,19 +1,11 @@ | |||
| [Unit] | |||
| Description=Docker Application Container Engine | |||
| Documentation=http://docs.docker.com | |||
| {% if ansible_os_family == "RedHat" %} | |||
| After=network.target {{ ' docker-storage-setup.service' if docker_container_storage_setup else '' }} containerd.service | |||
| After=network.target docker.socket containerd.service lvm2-monitor.service SuSEfirewall2.service | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HI @VannTen
The SuSEfirewall2 is only needed when ansible_os_family == "Suse"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is intentional. systemd tolerates non-existent unit in After= without problem.
not doing a conditional After list allow a simpler template on our hand.
systemd has generally the principle of "progressive enhancement", aka, it supports what's available on the system it's running on, and ignore the rest ; so I usually find it more appropriate to have as little variation in systemd unit as possible between environments, as long as it's supported.
| @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ calico_wireguard_enabled: true | |||
|
|
|||
| The following OSes will require enabling the EPEL repo in order to bring in wireguard tools: | |||
|
|
|||
| * CentOS 7 & 8 | |||
| * CentOS 8 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All versions of CentOS are already EOL, do I think it's possible to remove it completely?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah but I'd rather do that in a separate PR to keep things small in this one.
Besides, Centos7 share code path with RHEL7, which is not supported anymore either, while centos8 share stuff with RHEL8, which is, so the benefits from removing centos 8 support are smaller.
Is that acceptable to you ?
|
Thanks @VannTen |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
What this PR does / why we need it:
This removes support for CentOS 7 and RHEL 7 (and derivatives)
Both are EOL in 1 mont (30/06/2024), though RHEL 7 will still have Extended Life Support, but this is quite limited support
This should reduce the complexity of some roles and will help with future development (for instance #11158 and #10701)
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: