fyi, the Arrow submodule just merged to master with https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/44696. please let me know if this causes any build issues on master asap! i'm planning to cherry-pick this for the quincy release On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:16 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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
