On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:57 AM John Mulligan <phlogistonjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think this RPM derived cephadm is appropriate for
general uses. RPM mangles the shebang line to something RH-distro specific so
That's not entirely accurate.
Packaging guidelines these days say that the python shebang should be /usr/bin/python3. I believe that's true even for Debian and Ubuntu.
Some developers think it's smart to use #! /usr/bin/env python. In gluster we had a mix of that and some #! /usr/bin/python or #! /usr/bin/python2 shebangs. These were all changed to #! /usr/bin/python3. (Obviously on old distros like RHEL7 it needs to be /usr/bin/python2 and in gluster we added some sed magic to the glusterfs.spec to fix them at build time. Before its EOL, RHEL7 was one of the last major distros still using python2.)
On Fedora, RHEL, and SUSE, rpmbuild will whine about incorrect shebangs during the build. It may even change them, I don't remember at this point. IIRC, if it changes them, it changes them to /usr/bin/python3.
this `cephadm` wouldn't work properly on distros like debian, ubuntu, etc.
If all the shebangs are #! /usr/bin/python3 — either in the source to start with, or changed by the rpmbuild — they work on Debian and Ubuntu just fine. Or they should. If they don't, there's a different problem.
If cephadm is a separate package (for some definition of package) I have to wonder why you're *not* working on adding them to Fedora and CentOS Storage SIG, where Ceph and several related packages are already being packaged for wide consumption.
Kaleb
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
