I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this is not right.
You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on once we build a project on top of it
CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly. We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those vendors, maybe...
Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.
Just my 2 cents...
Jan On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper
builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the
systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for
centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to
maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
"Dropping" them would mean:
- Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and
jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
- We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new
releases.
- We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for
future bugfix point releases.
- The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the
burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on
precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the
packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.
Specifically,
CentOS6 / RHEL6
Ubuntu precise 12.04
Debian wheezy
Would anyone miss them?
In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit
entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing
upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The
sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry
about packaging and testing them properly.)
Thanks!
sage
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
|
