14 Jul
2023
14 Jul
'23
12:35 p.m.
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:12 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Originally we had about a hundred packages in
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ceph/el9/ before they were
wiped out in rhbz#2143742. I went back over the list of outstanding
deps today. EPEL lacks only five packages now. I've built those into
the Copr today.
You can enable it with "dnf copr enable -y ceph/el9" . I think we
should add this command to the container Dockerfile, Teuthology tasks,
install-deps.sh, or whatever needs to run on el9 that is missing these
packages.
These tickets track moving the final five builds from the Copr into EPEL9:
python-asyncssh - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196046
this one just moved to ON_QA
python-pecan - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196045
python-routes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620
pecan and routes are resolved
python-repoze-lru - no BZ yet
Ken, do you know if there's any progress on this one?
python-logutils - provide karma here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6baae8389d
this one was resolved, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196790
I was interested to see almost all of these are already in progress .
That final one (logutils) should go to EPEL's stable repo in a week
(faster with karma).
- Ken
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:00 AM Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
are there any volunteers willing to help make these python packages
available upstream?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hey Ken,
This change doesn't not involve any further internet access other than the already
required for the "make dist" stage (e.g.: npm packages). That said, where
feasible, I also prefer to keep the current approach for a minor version.
Kind Regards,
Ernesto
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I hope we don't backport such a big change to Quincy. That will have a
> large impact on how we build in restricted environments with no
> internet access.
>
> We could get the missing packages into EPEL.
>
> - Ken
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 7:32 AM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Casey,
> >
> > The original idea was to leave this to Reef alone, but given that the CentOS 9
Quincy release is also blocked by missing Python packages, I think that it'd make
sense to backport it.
> >
> > I'm coordinating with Pere (in CC) to expedite this. We may need help to
troubleshoot Shaman/rpmbuild issues. Who would be the best one to help with that?
> >
> > Regarding your last question, I don't know who's the maintainer of those
packages in EPEL. There's this BZ (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620) requesting
that specific package, but that's only one out of the dozen of missing packages (plus
transitive dependencies)...
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Ernesto
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:19 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi Ernesto and lists,
> >>
> >> > [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47501
> >>
> >> are we planning to backport this to quincy so we can support centos 9
> >> there? enabling that upgrade path on centos 9 was one of the
> >> conditions for dropping centos 8 support in reef, which i'm still keen
> >> to do
> >>
> >> if not, can we find another resolution to
> >> https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/58832? as i understand it, all of
> >> those python packages exist in centos 8. do we know why they were
> >> dropped for centos 9? have we looked into making those available in
> >> epel? (cc Ken and Kaleb)
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:01 PM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Kevin,
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Isn't this one of the reasons containers were pushed, so that
the packaging isn't as big a deal?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but the Ceph community has a strong commitment to provide distro
packages for those users who are not interested in moving to containers.
> >> >
> >> >> Is it the continued push to support lots of distros without using
containers that is the problem?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If not a problem, it definitely makes it more challenging. Compiled
components often sort this out by statically linking deps whose packages are not widely
available in distros. The approach we're proposing here would be the closest
equivalent to static linking for interpreted code (bundling).
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for sharing your questions!
> >> >
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > Ernesto
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
> >> > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
> >>
>