On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 16:48 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 9/29/23 14:53, Matthew Vernon wrote:
My Debian developer hat is sympathetic to this problem, too (but doesn't have a lot of free time!). I think I'm inclined to agree with Bernd that it may not be a valuable use of time trying to get packages built for architectures that Ceph upstream don't support, particularly given how resource-hungry the build process is.
I don't agree with this, especially considering we need librbd for many packages in Debian. I counted 10 packages in Debian that have build-depends on librbd-dev or librados-dev. If Ceph gets removed from Debian, then the support for Ceph by those packages is gone too...
How many of these packages are really needed on a 32bit arch? Even if you don't like it, the reality is that - at least the last time I checked it - not even reading the default config values is possible with the current code base, and the Debian patch that fixed the compilation NEEDS to be removed as it will absolutely lead to memory errors on runtime. What you can try is to build librbd and librados on 32bit arches and ignore everything else. I'm not sure how much they need from the rest of the code base, but its much more reasonable to ship only them on 32bit instead of a definitely broken ceph.
Hopefully, we can get to a state where the diff between the Debian package and the upstream Ceph one is very small.
When I started looking into ceph I've removed lots of stuff from the debian folder that the ubuntu people added for unknown reasons, its much closer to upstream these days then it was before. Actually close enough that it is no problem to switch to the upstream packages at all. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F