Hey Ken, This change doesn't not involve any further internet access other than the already required for the "make dist" stage (e.g.: npm packages). That said, where feasible, I also prefer to keep the current approach for a minor version. Kind Regards, Ernesto On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I hope we don't backport such a big change to Quincy. That will have a > large impact on how we build in restricted environments with no > internet access. > > We could get the missing packages into EPEL. > > - Ken > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 7:32 AM Ernesto Puerta <epuertat@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > 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
 |