[report|collector|policies] Add an S3 protocol upload option #3447

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-16T00:25:37Z

Closes #3112

Please place an 'X' inside each '[]' to confirm you adhere to our Contributor Guidelines

Is the commit message split over multiple lines and hard-wrapped at 72 characters?
Is the subject and message clear and concise?
Does the subject start with [plugin_name] if submitting a plugin patch or a [section_name] if part of the core sosreport code?
Does the commit contain a Signed-off-by: First Lastname [email protected]?
Are any related Issues or existing PRs properly referenced via a Closes (Issue) or Resolved (PR) line?

packit-as-a-service · 2023-12-16T00:29:52Z

Congratulations! One of the builds has completed. 🍾

You can install the built RPMs by following these steps:

sudo yum install -y dnf-plugins-core on RHEL 8
sudo dnf install -y dnf-plugins-core on Fedora
dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-3447
And now you can install the packages.

Please note that the RPMs should be used only in a testing environment.

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-16T00:53:53Z

@TurboTurtle The x86_64 RPM build succeeds, however, I don't seem to be able to access repo metadata for installation and testing:

$ sudo dnf install -y sos-4.6.0-1.20231216003429832355.pr3447.82.g9e05d8c7.fc40.noarch
Copr repo for sosreport-sos-3447 owned by packit                                                                                                                                                              454  B/s | 341  B     00:00    
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447':
  - Status code: 404 for https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/sosreport-sos-3447/fedora-39-x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml (IP: 2600:9000:25f2:ca00:4:bbc1:1840:93a1)
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried
Ignoring repositories: copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447
Last metadata expiration check: 2:22:12 ago on Fri 15 Dec 2023 02:21:32 PM PST.
No match for argument: sos-4.6.0-1.20231216003429832355.pr3447.82.g9e05d8c7.fc40.noarch
Error: Unable to find a match: sos-4.6.0-1.20231216003429832355.pr3447.82.g9e05d8c7.fc40.noarch

As Fedora 39 is out, let bump its versions in copr builds and GCE testing. Sadly, GCE images offer F39 beta only, so far.. Resolves: sosreport#3448 Relevant: sosreport#3447 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

pmoravec · 2023-12-16T13:36:54Z

The copr build is not there since we haven't bumped Fedora versions since F39 release: we ask for such builds for F37, F38 and rawhide now.

I opened #3448 to fix that.

pmoravec · 2023-12-16T14:04:38Z

NACK to the plain extension of install requirements. We should keep the hard requirements as small as possible, to allow installation of sos to as wide range of systems as possible.

E.g. here, python3-boto3 is not in RHEL (8 or 9), just in EPEL. So this change would prevent installing sos on RHEL :)

Rather make the requirement and import conditional, like:

https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/main/sos/policies/distros/__init__.py#L29-L33

arif-ali · 2023-12-16T18:24:44Z

The deb build is failing, as it does some unit tests as part of the build (That's how deb packaging works).

So, we will need to add python3-boto3, so that in debian/control now has the following change

Depends: ${python3:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, python3-pexpect, python3-magic, python3-packaging, python3-boto3

For the snap (as that will then fail too), can you add boto3 under python-packages in snap/snapcraft.yaml

@dnegreira FYI, does that sound reasonable for the control file, or do we want to avoid doing a Depends on a universe package, see below?

❱❱❱ rmadison python3-boto3
 python3-boto3 | 1.2.2-2         | xenial/universe | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.4.2-1         | bionic/universe | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.9.253-1       | focal/universe  | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.20.34+dfsg-1  | jammy/universe  | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.26.27+dfsg-1  | lunar/universe  | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.26.155+dfsg-1 | mantic/universe | all
 python3-boto3 | 1.28.49+dfsg-1  | noble/universe  | all

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-16T19:10:11Z

@arif-ali Would adding a Recommends and placing it there be more appropriate in case Universe is not enabled?

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-16T20:19:40Z

The copr build is not there since we haven't bumped Fedora versions since F39 release: we ask for such builds for F37, F38 and rawhide now.

I opened #3448 to fix that.

For now, I'll spin up a new F38 VM until the F39 issues are resolved.

arif-ali · 2023-12-16T21:22:48Z

@arif-ali Would adding a Recommends and placing it there be more appropriate in case Universe is not enabled?

could be an option, but want a +1 from my other fellow colleagues who take on the Ubuntu packaging. But like @pmoravec mentioned, we ought to have a condition of the boto3 being available. Considering that boto3 is in universe in Ubuntu and only in EPEL for EL 8 and EL9.

From the Ubuntu perspective, we expect this to be available for 20.04, 22.04, 23.04, 23.10 and the upcoming 24.04. All of these have boto3 in universe

But happy on the snap side, as that would be the only way to enable it, and it builds on core22 which is a 22.04 base and will ship as standard, and we ship all the libs as required and comes via pip3.

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-17T02:41:50Z

The copr build is not there since we haven't bumped Fedora versions since F39 release: we ask for such builds for F37, F38 and rawhide now.
I opened #3448 to fix that.

For now, I'll spin up a new F38 VM until the F39 issues are resolved.

@pmoravec The instructions from packit-as-a-service don't seem to work as described for F38 either:

$ sudo dnf install -y dnf-plugins-core
Fedora 38 - x86_64                              3.7 MB/s |  83 MB     00:22    
Fedora 38 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64        1.0 kB/s | 2.5 kB     00:02    
Fedora Modular 38 - x86_64                      777 kB/s | 2.8 MB     00:03    
Fedora 38 - x86_64 - Updates                    2.7 MB/s |  36 MB     00:13    
Fedora Modular 38 - x86_64 - Updates            463 kB/s | 2.1 MB     00:04    
Package dnf-plugins-core-4.4.0-1.fc38.noarch is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!

$ sudo dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-3447
Enabling a Copr repository. Please note that this repository is not part
of the main distribution, and quality may vary.

The Fedora Project does not exercise any power over the contents of
this repository beyond the rules outlined in the Copr FAQ at
<https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-in-copr>,
and packages are not held to any quality or security level.

Please do not file bug reports about these packages in Fedora
Bugzilla. In case of problems, contact the owner of this repository.

Do you really want to enable copr.fedorainfracloud.org/packit/sosreport-sos-3447? [y/N]: y
Error: It wasn't possible to enable this project.
Repository 'fedora-38-x86_64' does not exist in project 'packit/sosreport-sos-3447'.
Available repositories: 'fedora-rawhide-aarch64', 'fedora-rawhide-ppc64le', 'fedora-rawhide-x86_64', 'fedora-rawhide-s390x'

If you want to enable a non-default repository, use the following command:
  'dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-3447 <repository>'
But note that the installed repo file will likely need a manual modification.

Since it was identical behavior to F39 I enabled fedora-rawhide-x86_64 as the only x86_64 based repo suggested. I haven't used copr from packit in at least a year, should it automatically find the fedora-38-x86_64, or should rawhide have the repository metadata for F38?

$ sudo dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-3447 fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Enabling a Copr repository. Please note that this repository is not part
of the main distribution, and quality may vary.

The Fedora Project does not exercise any power over the contents of
this repository beyond the rules outlined in the Copr FAQ at
<https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#what-i-can-build-in-copr>,
and packages are not held to any quality or security level.

Please do not file bug reports about these packages in Fedora
Bugzilla. In case of problems, contact the owner of this repository.

Do you really want to enable copr.fedorainfracloud.org/packit/sosreport-sos-3447? [y/N]: y
Repository successfully enabled.

$ dnf list sos --showduplicates
Copr repo for sosreport-sos-3447 owned by packit                                                           187  B/s | 341  B     00:01    
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447':
  - Status code: 404 for https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/sosreport-sos-3447/fedora-38-x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml (IP: 108.138.85.40)
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried
Fedora Modular 38 - x86_64 - Updates                                                                       417 kB/s | 2.1 MB     00:05    
Ignoring repositories: copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:packit:sosreport-sos-3447
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:01 ago on Sat 16 Dec 2023 09:21:59 PM EST.
Installed Packages
sos.noarch                                                      4.5.1-1.fc38                                                      @anaconda
Available Packages
sos.noarch                                                      4.5.1-1.fc38                                                      fedora

sos/policies/distros/__init__.py

pmoravec · 2023-12-17T10:23:05Z

I think we need to change https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/main/.packit.yaml#L17-L21 to target fedora-all.

I bumped my PR that way and now I see more packit builds \o/ .

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

dnegreira · 2023-12-18T08:46:57Z

Hi @arif-ali and @TrevorBenson,

@dnegreira FYI, does that sound reasonable for the control file, or do we want to avoid doing a Depends on a universe package, see below?
@arif-ali Would adding a Recommends and placing it there be more appropriate in case Universe is not enabled?

Unfortunately, both recommendations are not allowed as sosreport is in Ubuntu's main repositories.

The condition to load boto3, if it is available, LGTM as a way forward.

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-18T22:00:38Z

I got a BAD key ID on F38, I originally suspected it was related to this. However I didn't get any key issues on F39 when installing.

I didn't check if F39 had an additional change and it now uses something only compatible with >=F39. Just letting you know in case you want to drop F38 since it does not appear to be testable.

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-23T01:16:13Z

I think this may be ready to convert from draft to review. I've tested sos report with various option combinations with (and without):

--upload-protocol
--upload-url
--upload-s3-region
--upload-s3-bucket
--upload-s3-endpoint
--upload-s3-access-key
--upload-s3-secret-key

For my F39 workstation/laptop I am having some issues with testing sos collect but I have an el8-based lab I should be able to try it on and believe I have previously used the collector --transport saltstack with. So believe I should be able to run some additional tests to confirm it works for collections as well.

I do however welcome anyone with interest in uploads to s3 buckets to give a Packit RPM a try in case I overlooked anything by performing each test manually.

As Fedora 39 is out, let bump its versions in copr builds and GCE testing. Sadly, GCE images offer F39 beta only, so far.. Resolves: sosreport#3448 Relevant: sosreport#3447 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-23T18:10:16Z

Enterprise Linux

Repositories

@pmoravec Commit 437fe69 extends the .packit.yaml to include centos as I suspect CentOS Stream will be the intended repository used for testing on Red Hat 8/9 and downstream recompiles. As the subject of #3448 is specific to Fedora should I open a new PR specific to adding CentOS, or would you prefer to include these changes in the existing PR?

Testing

The 4.6.0-5 current el8 RPM was newer than the 4.6.0-1 from COPR. I suspect this may be an artifact due to Red Hat backporting fixes. I couldn't seem to target it specifically as a downgrade either:

dnf downgrade 4.6.0-1.20231223172713522168.pr3447.87.g0887f9f5.el8
Last metadata expiration check: 0:13:50 ago on Sat 23 Dec 2023 01:46:10 AM PST.
No package 4.6.0-1.20231223172713522168.pr3447.87.g0887f9f5.el8 available.
Error: No packages marked for downgrade.

In any case, I was able to avoid removing the dependencies and get it installed via:

rpm -e --nodeps sos
dnf install --disablerepo=baseos sos

However, given the simplicity of the Packit suggestion I'm not sure this is the intended way to install on EL distros w/ COPR, or just the quick workaround I came up with. Did I overlook an option to Packit that would have based the RPM off the current upstream NEVRA when generating the RPM for that COPR repository?

I'll clean up this PR by dropping cherry-picks, or commits moving to a new PR, before converting this from Draft to Ready once I know your preference.

Thanks

TrevorBenson · 2023-12-30T19:38:28Z

@arif-ali Do actions/workflows build a Debian PKG for testing? I've tested Fedora and Enterprise Linux with success. I have not tested on Ubuntu distro's though since there were no suggestions similar to Packit.

arif-ali · 2023-12-31T12:44:42Z

@arif-ali Do actions/workflows build a Debian PKG for testing? I've tested Fedora and Enterprise Linux with success. I have not tested on Ubuntu distro's though since there were no suggestions similar to Packit.

Yes it does, below is the deb artifact from the cirrus builds and was built on Ubuntu 23.10 (mantic), which you could try

https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5584901588647936/packages/sos_cirrus.deb

Alternatively, a snap is also created, and below is the link to the snap that as created as part of the build

https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/6710801495490560/packages/sosreport_test_amd64.snap

TurboTurtle

Overall it looks good from a code perspective, some minor notes below.

I'm kind of torn on the Recommends - I fully get the intent (and certainly not having it as a hard Requires), but afaik most rpm-based distros default to "always install recommends packages" and I wonder if pulling in boto3 as, effectively, a default is the right choice.

sos/collector/__init__.py

sos/policies/distros/__init__.py

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-08T14:42:39Z

Overall it looks good from a code perspective, some minor notes below.

I'm kind of torn on the Recommends - I fully get the intent (and certainly not having it as a hard Requires), but afaik most rpm-based distros default to "always install recommends packages" and I wonder if pulling in boto3 as, effectively, a default is the right choice.

I'll make whatever change is suggested. However, isn't the benefit of using Recommends instead of Requires that the end user could bypass this package altogether when using --setopt=install_weak_deps=False and avoid potential installation failures in the event the RPM is not available? While the latter should be rare, unless repositories are being recreated without complete package sets, I have seen this and deal with it almost daily.

TurboTurtle · 2024-01-08T14:59:54Z

Overall it looks good from a code perspective, some minor notes below.
I'm kind of torn on the Recommends - I fully get the intent (and certainly not having it as a hard Requires), but afaik most rpm-based distros default to "always install recommends packages" and I wonder if pulling in boto3 as, effectively, a default is the right choice.

I'll make whatever change is suggested. However, isn't the benefit of using Recommends instead of Requires that the end user could bypass this package altogether when using --setopt=install_weak_deps=False and avoid potential installation failures in the event the RPM is not available? While the latter should be rare, unless repositories are being recreated without complete package sets, I have seen this and deal with it almost daily.

Oh I'm almost certainly being too paranoid about this :).

My new job has just happened to push package set security (i.e. "as little as possible") to the front of my mind at this point in time, that's all.

Taking a bit of a step back from that, you're right. Anyone who actually cares about this will either know about weak deps or have already disabled them. No issue from me on the spec file anymore.

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-08T18:26:01Z

@arif-ali @TurboTurtle Just as an FYI I'd prefer this hold off from merging until after #3463 is finalized/merged and I can include an additional commit extending this branch to include --upload-s3-secret-key to the obfuscation. This new secret is what drove me investigate and to open #3462 in the first place.

Thanks!

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-15T20:24:41Z

@arif-ali Do actions/workflows build a Debian PKG for testing? I've tested Fedora and Enterprise Linux with success. I have not tested on Ubuntu distro's though since there were no suggestions similar to Packit.

Yes it does, below is the deb artifact from the cirrus builds and was built on Ubuntu 23.10 (mantic), which you could try

https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5584901588647936/packages/sos_cirrus.deb

Alternatively, a snap is also created, and below is the link to the snap that as created as part of the build

https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/6710801495490560/packages/sosreport_test_amd64.snap

Seems I forgot to report back on this the other week.

@arif-ali I tested both the deb package and the snap (using --classic --dangerous). As long as the system had the python3-boto3 package installed the s3 upload worked as intended.

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-15T21:12:22Z

The force push was for the rebase on main to include #3463 so that a5b9539 could be added.

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-16T16:20:27Z

@TurboTurtle @arif-ali
Does the rpm Build From Checkout - centos-stream-8 failure (due to timeout) need to be addressed? I don't see a workflow dispatch or an option to rerun failed tests.

If not I believe this PR is ready for final reviews.

TurboTurtle · 2024-01-16T16:32:35Z

I restarted the job - since this particular build is done via Cirrus only Pavel, Arif, Bryn, and myself have permissions to restart it (since the permission handling on non GH-enterprise orgs like us is very coarse - you have to be an "owner" to do it here).

The timeout is definitely not related to the changes here, but it does block the other cirrus jobs from running, so I'll watch this and restart it again if needed.

TurboTurtle

Code looks good to me, just a stickler point from our Contribution Guidelines. The commit messages should be prefixed with a relevant tag, e.g. [upload] or somesuch (it makes trawling the git history much easier as time goes on). Also the second commit should be squashed into the first. The S3 obfuscation commit is perfectly fine being a separate commit in the chain.

TrevorBenson · 2024-01-16T17:17:29Z

Code looks good to me, just a stickler point from our Contribution Guidelines. The commit messages should be prefixed with a relevant tag, e.g. [upload] or somesuch (it makes trawling the git history much easier as time goes on). Also the second commit should be squashed into the first. The S3 obfuscation commit is perfectly fine being a separate commit in the chain.

Added the context [upload] and squashed.

pmoravec · 2024-01-17T08:35:13Z

I just dont get the ubuntu-18.4 CI test error:

Could not initialize 'report': future feature annotations is not defined (__init__.py, line 5)

We dont use annotations from future class, esp. we dont import that on line 5. Logs from the test are very concise..

arif-ali · 2024-01-17T13:50:01Z

I just dont get the ubuntu-18.4 CI test error:
Could not initialize 'report': future feature annotations is not defined (__init__.py, line 5)
We dont use annotations from future class, esp. we dont import that on line 5. Logs from the test are very concise..

I'll need to check this locally, and see what is going on.

Ultimately, the test is being done, once the snap is installed and the snap is based on 22.04's python, and doesn't use the python on 18.04. I will get back on this one, and report back on why this is not working

arif-ali · 2024-01-17T14:21:40Z

On that, below is the error we get on this particular patch, it's not obvious where the issue is, and remember debugging something very similar early last year, I will continue to debug, and get back on the resolution

root@bionic-sos-snap-test:~/sos# sos collect --list-options --debug
Could not initialize 'collect': future feature annotations is not defined (__init__.py, line 5)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/snap/sosreport/x1/bin/sos", line 21, in <module>
    sos = SoS(sys.argv[1:])
  File "/root/sos/sos/__init__.py", line 124, in __init__
    self._init_component()
  File "/root/sos/sos/__init__.py", line 189, in _init_component
    raise err
  File "/root/sos/sos/__init__.py", line 184, in _init_component
    self._component = _to_load(self.parser, self.args, self.cmdline)
  File "/root/sos/sos/collector/__init__.py", line 141, in __init__
    super(SoSCollector, self).__init__(parser, parsed_args, cmdline_args)
  File "/root/sos/sos/component.py", line 90, in __init__
    self.load_local_policy()
  File "/root/sos/sos/component.py", line 132, in load_local_policy
    probe_runtime=self.load_probe)
  File "/root/sos/sos/policies/__init__.py", line 36, in load
    import sos.policies.distros
  File "/root/sos/sos/policies/distros/__init__.py", line 30, in <module>
    import requests
  File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/requests/__init__.py", line 43, in <module>
    import urllib3
  File "/snap/sosreport/x1/lib/python3.10/site-packages/urllib3/__init__.py", line 5
    from __future__ import annotations
    ^
SyntaxError: future feature annotations is not defined

snap/snapcraft.yaml

Signed-off-by: Trevor Benson <[email protected]>

pmoravec mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2023

[cirrus] Bump Fedora release/image #3448

Open

5 tasks

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from e70b5a2 to e5c2442 Compare December 16, 2023 19:05

arif-ali requested changes Dec 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

sos/policies/distros/__init__.py Show resolved Hide resolved

pmoravec added a commit to pmoravec/sos that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2023

[packit] Configure copr builds for all supported Fedora releases

122137d

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from 5a49077 to 619b7de Compare December 18, 2023 19:48

TrevorBenson pushed a commit to TrevorBenson/sos that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2023

[packit] Configure copr builds for all supported Fedora releases

619b7de

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from 4519d65 to 4c81edd Compare December 23, 2023 01:09

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from 4c81edd to 843c65e Compare December 23, 2023 17:05

TrevorBenson pushed a commit to TrevorBenson/sos that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2023

[packit] Configure copr builds for all supported Fedora releases

7ace4ef

Relevant: sosreport#3447 Relevant: sosreport#3448 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from a77f678 to 437fe69 Compare December 23, 2023 17:25

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch 2 times, most recently from 2c55a4d to 0a0a158 Compare December 25, 2023 20:37

TrevorBenson marked this pull request as ready for review December 25, 2023 20:37

TrevorBenson requested a review from arif-ali December 25, 2023 20:37

TurboTurtle reviewed Jan 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

TrevorBenson requested a review from TurboTurtle January 15, 2024 20:25

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from f5a9a51 to a5b9539 Compare January 15, 2024 21:10

TurboTurtle reviewed Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from a5b9539 to 141427d Compare January 16, 2024 17:16

TurboTurtle approved these changes Jan 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

pmoravec approved these changes Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

arif-ali requested changes Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

snap/snapcraft.yaml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TrevorBenson requested a review from arif-ali January 18, 2024 01:18

TrevorBenson added 2 commits January 17, 2024 17:22

[upload] Add upload options for S3 protocol

5ce19d1

Signed-off-by: Trevor Benson <[email protected]>

[upload] Obfuscate the s3 secret key

f5ab86f

Signed-off-by: Trevor Benson <[email protected]>

TrevorBenson force-pushed the upload-to-s3-buckets branch from 794619f to f5ab86f Compare January 18, 2024 01:22

arif-ali approved these changes Jan 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

TurboTurtle merged commit ade3a8a into sosreport:main Jan 19, 2024
35 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[report|collector|policies] Add an S3 protocol upload option #3447

[report|collector|policies] Add an S3 protocol upload option #3447

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

packit-as-a-service bot commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 16, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 16, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 17, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

dnegreira commented Dec 18, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 18, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Dec 23, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 30, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 31, 2023

TurboTurtle left a comment

TrevorBenson commented Jan 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TurboTurtle commented Jan 8, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 8, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 15, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Jan 16, 2024

TurboTurtle commented Jan 16, 2024

TurboTurtle left a comment

TrevorBenson commented Jan 16, 2024

pmoravec commented Jan 17, 2024

arif-ali commented Jan 17, 2024

arif-ali commented Jan 17, 2024

[report|collector|policies] Add an S3 protocol upload option #3447

[report|collector|policies] Add an S3 protocol upload option #3447

Conversation

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023 • edited Loading

packit-as-a-service bot commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 16, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 16, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 16, 2023 • edited Loading

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 16, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 17, 2023

pmoravec commented Dec 17, 2023 • edited Loading

dnegreira commented Dec 18, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 18, 2023

TrevorBenson commented Dec 23, 2023 • edited Loading

TrevorBenson commented Dec 23, 2023

Enterprise Linux

Repositories

Testing

TrevorBenson commented Dec 30, 2023

arif-ali commented Dec 31, 2023

TurboTurtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TrevorBenson commented Jan 8, 2024 • edited Loading

TurboTurtle commented Jan 8, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 8, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 15, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Jan 15, 2024 • edited Loading

TrevorBenson commented Jan 16, 2024

TurboTurtle commented Jan 16, 2024

TurboTurtle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TrevorBenson commented Jan 16, 2024

pmoravec commented Jan 17, 2024

arif-ali commented Jan 17, 2024

arif-ali commented Jan 17, 2024

TrevorBenson commented Dec 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

arif-ali commented Dec 16, 2023 •

edited

Loading

pmoravec commented Dec 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Dec 23, 2023 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Jan 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

TrevorBenson commented Jan 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading