On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 >>>> to rawhide[0]. >>>> >>>> I would like to solicit thoughts on pushing this to F16. >>>> While this fixes 5 bugs in Fedora's bug tracker (and to be fair, 2 of >>>> them are easily fixed in the current version) there are a number of >>>> bugs fixed in the 4 months since 0.31 was released. >>>> The downside - a number of binaries and libraries have changed name[1], >>>> Technically this probably runs afoul of the updates policy, but ceph >>>> appears to be a leaf package if repoquery is to be believed, and it's >>>> still on the same major version number :). It's also true that there >>>> isn't really the idea of a supported version of Ceph since it's still >>>> very rapidly in development and considered quite bleeding edge. >>>> >>>> Thoughts, comments, flames? >>> >>> What's the impact? Are there api/abi changes that would need updates >>> to packages that depend on ceph? >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> >> The impact would be that folks would have different binary names, and >> of course a version change. The binary name change is really the only >> real issue that I see that makes it run afoul of the guidelines. (e.g. >> user experience is changed. >> Ceph appears to be a leaf package (if repoquery is to be believed.) > > Doesn't appear to be to me: > > Dependencies Resolved > > ============================================================================================================================================================ > Package Arch > Version Repository > Size > ============================================================================================================================================================ > Removing: > ceph x86_64 > 0.31-3.fc16 @fedora > 22 M > Removing for dependencies: > libvirt x86_64 > 0.9.6-2.fc16 @updates-testing > 6.5 M > qemu-common x86_64 > 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing > 847 k > qemu-img x86_64 > 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing > 834 k > qemu-kvm x86_64 > 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing > 0.0 > qemu-system-x86 x86_64 > 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing > 12 M > > Transaction Summary > ============================================================================================================================================================ > Remove 6 Packages > > This is why I queried the impact. Does anything in libvirt/qemu need > to be rebuild for a new soname, or patched to deal with the > aforementioned binary name change? > > As a side note I'm not sure why quemu needs a hard dependency on ceph, > its very usable without it and could remain an option. > > Peter > Bah, that's what I get for running repoquery against F15 really really early in the morning. And yes, it became a dependency because of RADOS support (technically the rados libraries only exist in Ceph.) Several folks have proposed creating ceph-libs to provide the libraries alone so ceph doesn't become a dependency, but that doesn't really solve this problem. Guess I'll dig much deeper into seeing if there were API/ABI changes. And as for why qemu has a hard dependency on ceph, I don't know. _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
