So, essentially, you'd vote that all LTS/enterprise releases be supported until their vendor's (canonical, Suse, red hat) designated EOL date? Not voting either way, just trying to put a date stamp on some of this. Joe > On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer <zviratko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |