[jovial]

No description provided.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: stackhpc/stackhpc-kayobe-config
• Branch: stackhpc/2026.1
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: 71b5197
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: e12039b0-a515-4d73-9993-fdfd851edfa5

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: stackhpc/stackhpc-kayobe-config
• Branch: stackhpc/2026.1
• File: .coderabbit.yaml
• Commit: 71b5197
• Layers: Repository YAML
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 4d1d664c-656d-4dc7-9461-36361529e88e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71b5197 and a058b1c.

📒 Files selected for processing: 1

• etc/kayobe/pulp-repo-versions.yml

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

Selected Pulp repository version timestamps were updated. Other repository version entries remain unchanged.

Changes: Pulp repository versions

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Update repository timestamps etc/kayobe/pulp-repo-versions.yml	Timestamps changed for selected CentOS, EPEL, Grafana, RabbitMQ, Rocky Linux, and Ubuntu repositories. Other entries remain unchanged.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to a058b

The timestamp updates present no identified merge-blocking risk.

Pre-merge checks: 3

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage		No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[Alex-Welsh]

@jovial two questions

1. is this to fix anything specific?
2. Should we also rebuild container images to make sure these new packages are used?

See also #2706

Also needs a release note 😉

[jovial]

@jovial two questions

1. is this to fix anything specific?

2. Should we also rebuild container images to make sure these new packages are used?

See also #2706

Also needs a release note 😉

It fixes at least CVE-2026-99999. But I don't be calling those out individually because there is probably a whole bunch of other stuff it fixes. We should be monitoring the CVEs at the client sites with Wazuh and pulling in updates regularly. It is completely unfeasible to list every CVE in a release note.

2. Should we also rebuild container images to make sure these new packages are used?

That will come in another PR. We can't be waiting days to get important OS updates.

[Alex-Welsh]

IMO if the point is security, we should really focus on rebuilding container images as well. Do you want to do that in this PR or make a follow up?

[jovial]

IMO if the point is security, we should really focus on rebuilding container images as well. Do you want to do that in this PR or make a follow up?

a follow up. The major CVE is host package side only. You also can't update containers simultaneously with os packages. We always recommend updating host packages first.