Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere. I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and I'm getting the error Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date). Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro.
Hi, In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19 You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues k Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Aug 2023, at 02:05, dobrie2@gmu.edu wrote:
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere.
I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and I'm getting the error
Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date).
Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not?
In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19
You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere.
I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and
I'm getting the error
Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-
- nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-
base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date).
Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro. _______________________________________________
Your are right. Centos stream is alpha Fedora is beta RHEL is stable Alma/Rocky/Oracle are based on RHEL Venlig hilsen - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Kind Regards, Jens Galsgaard Gitservice.dk Mob: +45 28864340 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Marc <Marc@f1-outsourcing.eu> Sendt: Friday, 4 August 2023 09.04 Til: Konstantin Shalygin <k0ste@k0ste.ru>; dobrie2@gmu.edu Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Emne: [ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9 But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not?
In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19
You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere.
I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and
I'm getting the error
Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-
- nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-
base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date).
Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro. _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
That’s a major misinterpretation of how it actually is in reality. Sorry just had to state that, obviously not the proper mailing list to discuss it on. Best regards Tobias
On 4 Aug 2023, at 09:25, Jens Galsgaard <jens@gitservice.dk> wrote:
Your are right.
Centos stream is alpha Fedora is beta RHEL is stable
Alma/Rocky/Oracle are based on RHEL
Venlig hilsen - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Kind Regards, Jens Galsgaard
Gitservice.dk Mob: +45 28864340
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Marc <Marc@f1-outsourcing.eu> Sendt: Friday, 4 August 2023 09.04 Til: Konstantin Shalygin <k0ste@k0ste.ru>; dobrie2@gmu.edu Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Emne: [ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not?
In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19
You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere.
I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and
I'm getting the error
Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-
- nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-
base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date).
Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro. _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
.... I thought so too, but now I'm a bit confused. We are planning to setup a new ceph cluster and initially opted for a el9 system, which is supposed to be stable, should we rather use a stream trail version? Dietmar On 8/4/23 09:04, Marc wrote:
But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not?
In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19
You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues
I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere.
I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and
I'm getting the error
Error: Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph-
- nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph-
base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date).
Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with the same distro. _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Konstantin Shalygin wrote:
Hi,
In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19
You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues
k
By definition, the stable version of anything is going to have "outdated versions of packages," so that's not really what's going on here. You did, unintentionally, give me the clue I needed, though. I accessed the Ceph repos from Rocky's Extras repo, which includes centos-release-ceph-quincy centos-release-ceph-pacific.noarch 1.0-2.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras centos-release-ceph-quincy.noarch 1.0-2.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras centos-release-cloud.noarch 1-1.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras Which is pointing to 9-stream. (I do remember seeing "9s" in the repo names, but I didn't connect it with Stream, since I don't do Stream in production and, honestly, I don't have enough time at work to do Stream in test, so...) From /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Ceph-Quincy.repo: metalink=https://mirrors.centos.org/metalink?repo=centos-storage-sig-ceph-quincy-9-stream&arch=$basearch Which is why I'm getting different dependencies. THAT I can take to the Rocky folks to get sorted. I can see where that would cause confusion, as it did in my case. When I originally installed Ceph, I was using RHEL, not Rocky and I didn't use (or have?) the Extras repo. I copied the repo over and edited it to point to Ceph Reef EL9, which installed fine -- and confused me further, but makes sense now since it wasn't for Stream. I'll roll my own repo files and not use the centos-release-ceph-* from Extras. Hopefully, this saves someone else a bit of grief later! Thanks!
participants (6)
-
Dietmar Rieder
-
dobrie2＠gmu.edu
-
Jens Galsgaard
-
Konstantin Shalygin
-
Marc
-
Tobias Urdin