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