On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:48 AM Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Alfredo Deza wrote: > > I think we are deviating a bit on the discussion: > > > > 1) We are not in the capacity of adding any other new distro to our > > build toolchain, for development or releases. > > > > 2) We can own the effort of adding the mechanisms needed in shaman > > (shaman.ceph.com) so that community-built Ceph packages/repos can > > report there. This will entail > > adding authentication so that updates can verify the source. > > > > For #2 specifically, the shaman dashboard allows updating the status > > of a build (started, building, failed, succeeded) as well as the repo. > > Tools like teuthology query shaman for the state and location > > of repos. The API is detailed here: https://github.com/ceph/shaman > > I think this is misunderstanding who "we" are. What distributions are > tested and built for shaman/chacra and download.ceph.com is a community > decision and depends on who is able to invest the effort. I agree here, I am not implying that the decision is (or should) not driven by the community. > If someone > shows up willing to do the work, whoever was doing the work before doesn't > get to just say no--especially if they don't want to be stuck with that > responsibility for all time. Our infrastructure (Jenkins, repo builders, OVH services, shaman) wasn't built with the ability to allow community contributions. At some point we tried with CERN who graciously spared a few nodes to build Ceph but this had lots of issues on both ends and ended up not moving forward with that way of extending how we build. Note that this is different from "what distro is going to be built" - adding nodes is just a piece of the puzzle. > > I see two paths forward: (1) we continue with a monolithic approach to > builds and expand the pool of people who understand and contribute to > maintaining the build infra, or (2) we rearchitect to a federated > approach. *Both* paths require knowledge transfer to new people, > especially if the old team is too busy with other projects (as I keep > hearing). (FWIW, the first path sounds like a lot less effort, and the > two presumably also aren't mutually exclusive.) I am all for anyone wanting to step up and do the work, but I see that functioning well if we stick with #2 which is what I am proposing: allow the community to build and maintain what is needed for other builds/distro combinations and allow those to be reported in shaman. Again, this will take some effort that I am happy to assist with. > > I talked to David a couple weeks back about getting a walk through > bringing Debian Buster up in fog so that we could document the process and > the response I got was that it is all already documented. It then took > him the rest of the day to get a working fog image. :) Where is this > documentation? > > Thanks! > sage > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:21 AM Marcin Juszkiewicz > > <marcin.juszkiewicz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > W dniu 02.08.2019 o 19:55, Alfredo Deza pisze: > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:20 PM Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> Kyrlyo wanted to add openSUSE to the set of distributions that get > > > >> build for and used by teuthology, for example: > > > > > > >> However, seems officially there are "no plans" to add other > > > >> platforms but Ubuntu and CentOS, so Alfredo closed the PRs. > > > > > > At Linaro we would like to help with adding Debian to the list of > > > distributions Ceph is built for. We can provide aarch64 (arm64) machines > > > for it. > > > > > > > Hey Lars. Adding a distro for builds is a very involved problem to > > > > solve. We don't keep a detailed list of everything that is needed > > > > but I will try to go over some of the well-known items: > > > > > > > 2) A new distribution added *must* exist in the cloud provider (OVH > > > > in this case) that can spin up a VM for builds (as of this writing, > > > > there is only an opensuse42 image available from 2016) > > > > > > https://www.ovh.co.uk/dedicated_servers/distributions/ lists Debian 10 > > > as available. Not that this page is up-to-date as it does not even list > > > Ubuntu 18.04 > > > > > > > 3) *All* the building scripts must be revised to ensure that the new > > > > distribution is accounted for. I did some of this work when adding > > > > Ubuntu Bionic and it was non-trivial, error prone, and it took about > > > > two weeks to really get it right with the help of other people. > > > > > > I can probably work on it. > > > > > > > 4) The services that ensure that images come up and are prepared to > > > > build Ceph have to be udpated as well to ensure that the minimum > > > > requirements are installed so that the machine is operational > > > > > > > 5) If the new distro is Python3 only we will need to update all > > > > tooling that interacts with a jenkins node - we are not there yet as > > > > all our tooling is Python2 exclusive. > > > > > > Debian 10 'buster' has both Python 2.7 and Python 3.7 so should not be > > > a problem - we can start with py2 and then update to py3 once Ceph move. > > > > > > > At Cephalocon, Ken Dreyer and me did a presentation on what exactly > > > > entails building Ceph for both development and releases, the > > > > problems we've faced and where we would like to head next. It might > > > > be useful to go through if you haven't already: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHyiQT8YJM > > > > > > Will watch it later. > > > > > > > A few of the things we brought up is that we (the Ceph > > > > infrastructure team and our services) aren't prepared to accommodate > > > > multiple other distributions and that we are trying to get away from > > > > taking on the load of maintenance in our systems and looking to other > > > > build/repo solutions. One of these solutions is the CentOS > > > > storage-sig which we are trying to coordinate to build and host repos > > > > for us there. > > > > > > > In addition to that, we mentioned that we would like to see a wider > > > > community effort go into building and hosting Ceph in separate > > > > systems, maybe with a special signing key (our release signing > > > > process is pretty inflexible!) so that others who are building > > > > development repositories can ensure their authenticity, while giving > > > > us the ability to revoke keys as needed. > > > > > > > In the past, we've gotten asked to re-enable the Debian builds, > > > > which puts us into a similar problem (maintenance burden, script > > > > updates, and other items already mentioned), and we've had to turn > > > > that down. As Ken mentions in the presentation, we really want to be > > > > helpful and accommodating to the wider community, but we can't do it > > > > on our own and with our infrastructure as it is today - we are maxed > > > > out. > > > > > > > Distributing community signing keys, or allowing other builders to > > > > submit status updates into shaman.ceph.com for testing scheduling is > > > > yet-to-be-done work, but I am open to have those conversations so > > > > that we can move forwards with more distros and better testing. > > > > > > At Linaro we can arrange machines for building and testing. Space for > > > hosting Debian/arm64 repos too. We are fine on using those machines also > > > to build packages for other arm64 distributions. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > > > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > > > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
