Re: Ceph Mgr/Dashboard Python depedencies: a new approach
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
i would hope that packaging for epel9 would be relatively easy, given that the epel8 packages already exist. as a first step, we'd need to build a full list of the missing packages. the tracker issue only complains about python3-asyncssh python3-pecan and python3-routes, but some of their dependencies may be missing too On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
Yeah, unfortunately we had all of these in the Copr, and some infrastructure change deleted them: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143742 So the quickest route back will be to rebuild the missing-from-EPEL packages with the newer Copr settings, and I have written notes for that in https://github.com/ktdreyer/ceph-el9 And the longer-term solution is to get the packages into EPEL proper. - Ken On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:04 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@redhat.com> wrote:
i would hope that packaging for epel9 would be relatively easy, given that the epel8 packages already exist. as a first step, we'd need to build a full list of the missing packages. the tracker issue only complains about python3-asyncssh python3-pecan and python3-routes, but some of their dependencies may be missing too
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
I'm not entirely following you. Your examples in your README.rst — lua-devel and nasm — are available in RHEL9 and CentOS Stream 9. They are in the CodeReady Builder repos. I sampled a few of the packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ceph/el9/packages/ too. libev is in the base. libuv-devel is in CodeReady Builder. Ditto for gtest-devel and libunwind-devel. At least I can install them using dnf on my vanilla employee SKU RHEL9 and CentOS Stream 9 boxes. If these packages are already in RHEL — in base, CodeReady Builder, or AppStream — they won't be added to EPEL. It's not allowed. For the rest of the packages that are in that list and/or in the trello board which are not already in RHEL, I'd start by asking that they be added to CodeReady Builder (or AppStream.) Then, if RHEL engineering won't add them, the next step is to ask for them in EPEL. Or you could go about it backwards, and add them to EPEL until they're added to CodeReady Builder. On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:17 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com> wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately we had all of these in the Copr, and some infrastructure change deleted them: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143742
So the quickest route back will be to rebuild the missing-from-EPEL packages with the newer Copr settings, and I have written notes for that in https://github.com/ktdreyer/ceph-el9
And the longer-term solution is to get the packages into EPEL proper.
- Ken
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:04 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@redhat.com> wrote:
i would hope that packaging for epel9 would be relatively easy, given that the epel8 packages already exist. as a first step, we'd need to build a full list of the missing packages. the tracker issue only complains about python3-asyncssh python3-pecan and python3-routes, but some of their dependencies may be missing too
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@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@redhat.com>
Hi Casey,
The original idea was to leave this to Reef alone, but given that
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
Kind Regards, Ernesto
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:19 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@redhat.com>
wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
> > Isn't this one of the reasons containers were pushed, so that
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
wrote: the CentOS 9 Quincy release is also blocked by missing Python packages, I think that it'd make sense to backport it. 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)... the packaging isn't as big a deal? 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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
-- Kaleb
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@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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@redhat.com>
Hi Kevin,
Isn't this one of the reasons containers were pushed, so that the
Yes, but the Ceph community has a strong commitment to provide distro
wrote: packaging isn't as big a deal? 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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
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@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@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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
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 python-pecan - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196045 python-routes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620 python-repoze-lru - no BZ yet python-logutils - provide karma here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6baae8389d 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@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@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@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@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@redhat.com> wrote:
hi Ernesto and lists,
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@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@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
thanks Ken! using copr sounds like a great way to unblock testing for reef until everything lands in epel for the teuthology part, i raised a pull request against teuthology's install task to add support for copr repositories (https://github.com/ceph/teuthology/pull/1844) and updated my ceph pr that adds centos9 as a supported distro (https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/50441) to enable that i tested that combination in the rgw suite, and all of the packages were installed successfully: http://qa-proxy.ceph.com/teuthology/cbodley-2023-05-18_13:12:32-rgw:verify-m... for reference, the teuthology-suite command line for that test was: $ teuthology-suite -s rgw:verify -m smithi --ceph-repo https://github.com/ceph/ceph.git -S fb28670387326ed3faf2b9cefac018ca68093364 --suite-repo https://github.com/cbodley/ceph.git --suite-branch wip-qa-distros-centos9 --teuthology-branch wip-install-copr -p 75 --limit 1 --seed 0 --filter centos_latest On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:12 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@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 python-pecan - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196045 python-routes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620 python-repoze-lru - no BZ yet python-logutils - provide karma here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6baae8389d
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:12 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@ceph.io
participants (4)
-
Casey Bodley
-
Ernesto Puerta
-
Kaleb Keithley
-
Ken Dreyer