Re: rgw: arrow packaging status for quincy

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

 




For those not in the RGW standups.

liborc (Apache ORC) passed package review for Fedora and packages are built for f37/rawhide. It is also updated to the latest version, 1.7.3. (The ugly patch I used to get it to build shlibs in 1.6.6 is much prettier — if that's possible — in 1.7.3.)  If anyone has any contacts at Apache that can get them to stop bundling dependencies that's be a big win in my book.

I'm now preparing libarrow (Apache Arrow) for Fedora package review. As Casey noted in another email  version 4.0.1 does not build with newer compilers, e.g. gcc-12 at least, maybe gcc-11 too, so I am working on packaging 7.0.0.

Once I get libarrow submitted to package review I will circle back and update the versions of liborc and libarrow in CentOS Stream 8 (and Stream 9 too) to the latest.

And longer term will get them and the other dependencies built in EPEL8 and EPEL9.


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:22 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
after discussion with our Debian/Ubuntu maintainers, we've decided
that Ceph will need to build arrow from a submodule for the quincy
release. both distros do provide the dependencies necessary for a
minimal build of arrow/parquet. i'm working through the cmake
integration of the arrow submodule in
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/44696

for Centos, Kaleb has packaged arrow and its missing dependencies and
made them available in the Centos Storage SIG
(https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Storage). i'm a bit wary
about requiring that our Centos users install this additional repo via
'yum install centos-release-ceph', though. the Storage SIG is also
going to host Centos' ceph release packages, so it may not a good idea
to mix those repos with our upstream download.ceph.com repo

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?



--

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