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,
ErnestoOn 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
>>
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
