hi James and Thomas, sorry to revive this ancient thread, but i wanted to follow up on debian packaging for this arrow dependency. Kaleb (cc'ed) worked through this on the rpm side quite a while ago. it would be nice to get the debs too so we can drop the submodule the upstream apache arrow project has been publishing deb packages, see https://arrow.apache.org/install/ can you share any guidance to help us get these packages into the distros? On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:13 AM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:47 AM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:25 AM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39 AM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> here's what i'm seeing from the latest builds in > >> >> https://shaman.ceph.com/builds/ceph/wip-use-epel-arrow/1ffcfa14e73b6ac92168ad5cefb066ad155b43b7/ > >> >> > >> > > >> > I'm kinda lost here. Of the six builds listed there, I can't find any mention of libarrow in any of the centos8 logs I can find. (Just "no matching package for arrow-devel.) Would you please send me a link directly to the log file(s) you're looking at? > >> > >> there's a "Log Output" link in the individual build pages. here's a > >> plain text link to the centos8 x86-64 build log: > > > > > > Yes, those were the links I was following trying to find something. My fault, I did not look at the last build on that list (326003) where the only mention of arrow is: > > Package arrow-devel-6.0.1-1.el8.x86_64 is already installed. > > > > The other two centos8 logs that I did look at have only > > No matching package to install: 'arrow-devel' > > > > That aside, the RPM names in EPEL (and Fedora, and CBS) are libarrow and libarrow-devel. (And parquet-libs and parquet-libs-devel.) > > > > I've never packaged Arrow 6. Not in EPEL, not in Fedora, not in CBS. EPEL8 has only ever had Arrow 8 (libarrow-8.0.z, currently libarrow-8.0.1-1.el8) EPEL9 has Arrow 9 (currently libarrow-9.0.0-8.el9) > > > > I have no idea where that one build got arrow-devel-6.0.1-1.el8 from. > > maybe those 6.0.1 packages were left over from the old apache.jfrog.io > repo we were using for initial parquet testing, but i thought we had > removed that repo from all the builders (this was discussed in > https://www.spinics.net/lists/dev-ceph/msg04048.html) > > with those package names corrected to libarrow-devel and > parquet-libs-devel, i'm now getting clean builds for centos 9. for > centos 8, we'll need to keep building arrow from submodule until that > subversion-devel module is available > > thanks Kaleb! > > > > > > >> > >> > >> https://jenkins.ceph.com/job/ceph-dev-new-build/ARCH=x86_64,AVAILABLE_ARCH=x86_64,AVAILABLE_DIST=centos8,DIST=centos8,MACHINE_SIZE=gigantic/66757/consoleText > >> > >> > > >> > Also, epel8 (and Stream8 in the CBS Storage SIG) have libarrow-8. I've never even built libarrow-6 in either epel8 or for Stream8. I'm not sure how anything is getting libarrow-6. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> on centos8 x86-64, it installs the arrow-devel-6.0.1-1 and > >> >> parquet-devel-6.0.1-1 packages and compiles successfully, but the > >> >> packaging step fails at the end with a bunch of errors like: > >> >> - nothing provides libarrow.so.600()(64bit) needed by > >> >> librgw2-2:18.0.0-1351.g1ffcfa14.el8.x86_64 > >> >> - nothing provides libparquet.so.600()(64bit) needed by > >> >> librgw2-2:18.0.0-1351.g1ffcfa14.el8.x86_64 > >> >> > >> >> would those errors indicate an issue with the arrow/parquet packages > >> >> themselves, or is the ceph build doing something wrong here? > >> >> > >> >> it fails to install the arrow- and parquet-devel packages for all > >> >> other rpm builds. for centos8 arm64, i assume it's because there are > >> >> no arm packages. but for x86-64 builds of centos9 and centos8+crimson, > >> >> i couldn't tell why it behaves differently from the centos8 build > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > <top post> > >> >> > So, in their infinite wisdom, RHEL engineering has decided that utf8proc-devel is to be included in the subversion-devel *module*. > >> >> > > >> >> > I haven't used modules much (and modules have gone through a lot of churn in Fedora) so I'm not especially familiar with them. That aside I have learned— > >> >> > > >> >> > To install utf8proc-devel on RHEL you need to: > >> >> > sudo dnf module enable subversion-devel > >> >> > sudo dnf install -y utf8proc-devel > >> >> > > >> >> > That will also work on Stream8 – eventually – after they fix the missing subversion-devel module. > >> >> > </top post> > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:52 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:39 PM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> This is an example of why we should move to el9-only (and drop el8 > >> >> >>> support). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> RHEL8, C8, and Stream8 usage numbers are still (anecdotally by CentOS and Red Hat peeps) much higher than RHEL9/Stream9 numbers. If you want people using & testing it upstream, it needs to be built or buildable on el8. If you don't want to build it for el8 in teuthology, e.g., that's outside my area of interest and/or responsibility. Do whatever you want there. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> AFAICT the utf8proc-epel package — which provides utf8proc-devel for epel8 — seems to have been allowed to fall behind what's in RHEL. Perhaps in anticipation of retiring it due to an apparent misunderstanding of what is in RHEL8. (A mistake?) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We should be good community members and the the bug fixed in epel8, instead of using it as justification for yanking support for el8. Which would be premature IMO. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> It's in RHEL 9 in > >> >> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041057 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Uh, yes. As I already indicated in my earlier email. But it's in AppStream and CodeReadyBuilder. Not the base. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And utf8proc is in RHEL8, also in AppStream (in a module). And AFAICT we need to resurrect utf8proc-devel in epel8 and get it updated to the same version that's in RHEL and Stream8. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> - Ken > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 6:29 AM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > I opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152211 and the utf8proc-epel packager has added the following comment: > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Actually, utf8proc-devel was added to the subversion-devel module in CRB - bz#1996237, so I have now retired this package. I noticed that subversion-devel seems to be missing from CentOS Stream 8, so I filed bz#2152265. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:39 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> For rhel8 and centos8/centos8s utf8proc is in base, and utf8proc-devel is in epel[1]. It appears that utf8proc-devel in epel is behind the times and installing utf8proc-devel will downgrade utf8proc to version 2.1.1. utf8proc was updated for rhel8.7 back in July and the epel maintainer has not updated it yet. I'll look into it. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> For rhel9 and centos9s utf8proc is in AppStream and utf8proc-devel is in codeready-builder (CRB) > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> For both el8 and el9 libarrow(-devel) and libparquet(-devel) are in epel8[2] and epel9[3]. > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=34406 > >> >> >>> >> [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2019255 > >> >> >>> >> [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2059829 > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:16 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> i've been trying to get our rpms to build without these arrow and > >> >> >>> >>> utf8proc submodules in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/46535, but > >> >> >>> >>> the shaman centos builds can't find their EPEL packages: > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > No matching package to install: 'arrow-devel' > >> >> >>> >>> > No matching package to install: 'parquet-devel' > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> can anyone help me figure out why? do we need to do anything special > >> >> >>> >>> to enable EPEL here, or would it already be available? > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 2:51 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > i've opened https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/45740 to add a paragraph > >> >> >>> >>> > about these bundled dependencies under "CMake Options" of README.md. > >> >> >>> >>> > it doesn't list all of these options, but a `grep WITH_SYSTEM_ > >> >> >>> >>> > CMakeLists.txt` will > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> >> >>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:05 AM Mark Nelson <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > On 3/30/22 10:05, Casey Bodley wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:18 PM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:59 PM Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >>> install-deps.sh should handle grabbing any relevant packages. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> Nope. Bad assumption. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> I'll be happy to walk you through building packages for RHEL, Fedora, and CentOS SIGs some time. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> Brew, Koji, and CBS all run builds in mock. Dependencies are preloaded and installed before rpmbuild runs. mock has networking disabled by default, so you quite simply can't do things like install other rpms, download outside sources, or do a git submodule init. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> I have some experience with pbuilder on Debian and Ubuntu too, but I don't know if it disables networking like mock does, although I suspect it may. > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> -- > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> >>> > > >> Kaleb > >> >> >>> >>> > > > since this is a discussion about our default values for WITH_SYSTEM_ > >> >> >>> >>> > > > cmake variables, i think it's best to separate out packaging concerns > >> >> >>> >>> > > > - we assume that distros are customizing these WITH_SYSTEM_ variables > >> >> >>> >>> > > > to match what's available, as we do in-tree with ceph.spec.in and > >> >> >>> >>> > > > debian/rules > >> >> >>> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > these cmake defaults are most important for ceph developers doing > >> >> >>> >>> > > > their local builds. and here, we do expect that install-deps.sh will > >> >> >>> >>> > > > install any system packages that are available on the user's distro > >> >> >>> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > from the perspective of a ceph developer trying to get the fastest > >> >> >>> >>> > > > local builds, i agree that it would be nice for some of these > >> >> >>> >>> > > > variables to default to ON instead of tuning them manually > >> >> >>> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > but from the perspective of maintaining an open source project, i also > >> >> >>> >>> > > > see a value in making sure that our default cmake configuration 'just > >> >> >>> >>> > > > works'. ceph is a big project with a complicated build system. by > >> >> >>> >>> > > > minimizing barriers to entry, we encourage more participation in the > >> >> >>> >>> > > > project > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > 100% Casey. Right now we are going to release quincy in a state where > >> >> >>> >>> > > it fails to build properly from source on RHEL and CentOS stream and > >> >> >>> >>> > > installing the system level utf8proc doesn't fix it. The only way to fix > >> >> >>> >>> > > it is to manually apply the fix from master or pass in > >> >> >>> >>> > > -DWITH_SYSTEM_UTF8PROC=OFF to do_cmake.sh (which we don't give the > >> >> >>> >>> > > user/developer instructions to do anywhere afaik). It's the kind of > >> >> >>> >>> > > thing that makes a developer wonder if they are better off installing a > >> >> >>> >>> > > non-redhat distro. > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > Mark > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > > >> >> >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > >> >> >>> >>> > > > 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 > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> -- > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> Kaleb > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > -- > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Kaleb > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kaleb > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > > >> >> > Kaleb > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Kaleb > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Kaleb _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
