Update foreman_ygg_worker to 0.3.0

[adamruzicka]

No description provided.

[adamruzicka]

Please hold on until I get a confirmation that we should be creating the group ourselves.

Edit: Not needed, yggdrasil ships a sysusers definition which handles the group creation

[evgeni]

@adamruzicka could you please rebase on the latest changes by Ewoud in rpm/develop?

[adamruzicka]

Well, this is tricky. foreman_ygg_worker-0.3.0 is now compatible with yggdrasil 0.2.z and 0.4.z (not sure about 0.3.z, probably too but who knows). However, the way we deploy yggdrasil is not compatible with yggdrasil >=0.4 until #11317 lands

[adamruzicka]

[test rpm-copr]

[pondrejk]

ack from the functional side, tested together with theforeman/katello-pull-transport-migrate#8

[evgeni]

Packaging wise this looks fine.
What I am confused about is the user deployment implications.

• Users who want to deploy a fresh, mqtt connected host, just need foreman_ygg_worker and the config gets created by the process that is deploying f_y_w, right?
• Users who want to migrate an existing, katello-agent, host, install Make the config file compatible with 0.2.z and 0.4.z katello-pull-transport-migrate#8 and that does things for them.
• Users who already have a 0.2 f_y_w, those need Add foreman_ygg_migration package #11317?

(assuming ygg 0.4, for all of the above)

[adamruzicka]

In general yes to all three.

Users who want to deploy a fresh, mqtt connected host, just need foreman_ygg_worker and the config gets created by the process that is deploying f_y_w, right?

Also yes, with "the process" being tweaked in theforeman/foreman#10340

[evgeni]

And you can't do the stuff from #11317 in %post of foreman_ygg_worker because that'd make the setup incompatible with ygg 0.2?
My brain tries really hard to tell me a new package is (UX wise) a bad idea.

[adamruzicka]

I need the post thingy to be run when yggdrasil itself gets updated to handle the service rename, which doesn't necessarily have to happen in the same transaction as when f_y_w is changed, so having it in f_y_w's post could miss this situation. The config file changes could be done at any time, but the service rename is tricky.

[evgeni]

My brain tries really hard to tell me a new package is (UX wise) a bad idea.

My main concern was that people need to install that package somehow, but in most cases (most: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/11317/files#r1822445063) this will happen automatically, so it's probably fine.

I still don't like this. But I also don't see a good way around it.