Re: Ceph Mgr/Dashboard Python depedencies: a new approach

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Casey,

The original idea was to leave this to Reef alone, but given that the
CentOS 9 Quincy release is also blocked by missing Python packages, I think
that it'd make sense to backport it.

I'm coordinating with Pere (in CC) to expedite this. We may need help to
troubleshoot Shaman/rpmbuild issues. Who would be the best one to help with
that?

Regarding your last question, I don't know who's the maintainer of those
packages in EPEL. There's this BZ (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620)
requesting that specific package, but that's only one out of the dozen of
missing packages (plus transitive dependencies)...

Kind Regards,
Ernesto


On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:19 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> hi Ernesto and lists,
>
> > [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47501
>
> are we planning to backport this to quincy so we can support centos 9
> there? enabling that upgrade path on centos 9 was one of the
> conditions for dropping centos 8 support in reef, which i'm still keen
> to do
>
> if not, can we find another resolution to
> https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/58832? as i understand it, all of
> those python packages exist in centos 8. do we know why they were
> dropped for centos 9? have we looked into making those available in
> epel? (cc Ken and Kaleb)
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 12:01 PM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> >>
> >> Isn't this one of the reasons containers were pushed, so that the
> packaging isn't as big a deal?
> >
> >
> > Yes, but the Ceph community has a strong commitment to provide distro
> packages for those users who are not interested in moving to containers.
> >
> >> Is it the continued push to support lots of distros without using
> containers that is the problem?
> >
> >
> > If not a problem, it definitely makes it more challenging. Compiled
> components often sort this out by statically linking deps whose packages
> are not widely available in distros. The approach we're proposing here
> would be the closest equivalent to static linking for interpreted code
> (bundling).
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your questions!
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Ernesto
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux