This task is to track the service implementation of deploy2003.
Do we take this opportunity to test trixie for deployment hosts and skip bookworm? Open questions for this: PHP version, ICU.
This task is to track the service implementation of deploy2003.
Do we take this opportunity to test trixie for deployment hosts and skip bookworm? Open questions for this: PHP version, ICU.
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown Object (Task) | |||||
| Resolved | Jhancock.wm | T400485 Q1:rack/setup/install deploy2003 | |||
| Open | Raine | T418262 deploy2003 implementation tracking |
Current state
If we continue to offer PHP directly in the host environment (e.g., for manual debugging of code in /srv/mediawiki), both PHP and ICU should match what we're using in production. Currently, production is on Debian bullseye, with PHP 8.3 and bullseye's standard ICU67. While we anticipate sticking to PHP 8.3 until ~ Q2 FY26-27, we'll soon be updating to ICU72 (Q3) and bookworm (Q4).
Available options
There are a couple of ways we can go at this, but I think there are two options that make the most sense.
If we want to maintain the status quo - i.e., PHP available on the host - then the simplest path forward would be to target bookworm for deploy2003, but hold off until (1) production has upgraded to ICU72 and (2) we have our PHP 8.3 packages built for bookworm (that part should be easy). There's likely a bit of work in profile::mediawiki::php to make that happen, but it should be straightforward.
If we want to stop offering PHP on the host, then we're immediately unblocked from the perspective of turning up deploy2003. However, that probably requires full support for running maintenance scripts in mw-experimental, if that's not already available (if it is, it's perhaps just a documentation problem), and some outreach to affected / interested parties.
I don't think it makes sense to consider trixie unless we go with the second option.
Between the two options, I think the second one aligns more closely with the direction we want to go (i.e. the container environment is the authoritative one).
Note: If we defer this until after the switchover, we have some breathing room until the active deployment server moves back to codfw (by which point, deploy2003 should clearly be the only one).
I agree that the second option makes the most sense with the overall strategy, as well as waiting until after the switchover (while the implementation is very late, it's only one host that is not being decommissioned).
IIRC, another blocker for getting rid of PHP on the deployment host is T377497: Functional replacement for importImages.php on Kubernetes
Oh, right! I completely forgot there still wasn't a solution for server-side uploads.
Yes, turning up deploy2003 on bookworm would be an ideal precursor to that. What I'm imagining is something shaped like the following:
Claiming per @MLechvien-WMF 's suggestion, though we won't go straight to Trixie due to the PHP blocker.