Re: rgw: arrow packaging status for quincy

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

 




On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:59 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:22 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
getting this stuff into EPEL would be ideal - even if it was just
enough to enable us to build the arrow submodule - but it sounds like
some obstacles remain here. what do people think about requiring this
extra centos-release-ceph repo for quincy? could that be acceptable as
a last resort?

I want to package Ceph's submodules separately, because we spend a lot of resources building these in CI, particularly when the code almost never changes. Fewer submodules -> faster builds.

Kaleb, What can I do to help accelerate getting the packages in Fedora and EPEL?

There is a pull request at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/utf8proc/pull-request/2 - does that need to go to utf8proc upstream?

Yes, I sent it for a reason. ;-)

Do you have an Fedora packaging bona fides? Michael Scherer added you as cc: to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005989, I guess he thought you'd be at least interested. Do you want to venture an opinion there? Once that's in then I can rinse and repeat for Arrow.

--

Kaleb
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Devel]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux