On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The thing is, our boost could easily end up being the "old" one, if >> the distro is shipping security updates to theirs. Our >> higher-numbered boost packages would potentially block the distro's >> updates to their lower-numbered boost packages. If we ship our own >> separate boost, then maybe Ceph is stuck with an un-patched boost, but >> other applications on the system are not. > > That scenario is theoretically possible, and it's good that you bring > it up for consideration. I'm trying to understand the likelihood of > the effort/disruption there. Do you have specific applications in mind > that would benefit in the way you describe? Ones that require boost > and are often co-installed on Ceph nodes? Any solution would need to protect against this. -- Cheers, Brad -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
