In all this please keep in mind that Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, and SuSE all have python-jwt and all have this functionality, and the CentOS packages will not be a (feature) parity with the other 3.12.3 packages if the python-jwt changes are reverted for CentOS.
On 11/22/2017 04:36 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:38:32AM +0530, Aravinda wrote: >> On Tuesday 21 November 2017 08:29 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:06:59AM +0530, Aravinda wrote: >>>> Hi Niels, >>>> >>>> I over looked the email about 3.12.3 release. >>>> >>>> Please suggest what we can do for this package dependency. This is runtime >>>> dependency for one of the sub feature, if it is delaying other things then >>>> we can remove this dependency from spec file.(All features work except >>>> signing the webhook data). >>> Hmm, normally new features do not get backported to prevent unforseen >>> problems... >>> >>> We have been delayed quite a bit already, users are asking for the >>> packages. If dropping the dependency from the .spec does not result in >>> errors or tracebacks, that would be one approach. Can you please confirm >>> that there are no problems when the package is missing? >> Without the dependency, BZ 1501864 will not work. I will start working on >> the alternate approach without using that library. We can remove from >> dependency list now. >> >> @Sahina, Is it possible to wait for this feature till 3.12.4 release? > > Many thanks Aravinda! I've spoken with Jiffin (one of the 3.12 release > managers) about this as well now. I will revert the change in the > packaging for the CentOS Storage SIG, both the code and the dependency. > > If a good alternative comes up, and the feature is critical to be in > 3.12, we can do an update of the RPMs or wait for 3.12.4+. > > Niels > > >>> If there is, we'll just bite the bullet and include python-jws-1.5 in >>> the CentOS Storage SIG while keeping an eye on the Fedora package for >>> updates. Additional maintainers for this and other packages are much >>> wanted. >>> >>> Niels >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 20 November 2017 09:59 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>>>> Hi Aravinda, >>>>> >>>>> A reply on the questions below is still outstanding. At the moment, I >>>>> tend to think that using the most recent python-jwt package from Fedora >>>>> is the most reasonable approach. It is a little more maintained there, >>>>> and the CentOS Storage SIG can then piggy-back on the coming bugfixes >>>>> and updates. >>>>> >>>>> Is there someone who wants to maintain/assist with watching over >>>>> python-jwt for the CentOS Storage SIG? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Niels >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Niels de Vos wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:39:46AM +0000, jenk...@build.gluster.org >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> SRC: >>>>>>> https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/21/artifact/glusterfs-3.12.3.tar.gz >>>>>>> HASH: >>>>>>> https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/21/artifact/glusterfs-3.12.3.sha256sum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This release is made off jenkins-release-21 >>>>>> This release adds an additional dependency for the glusterfs-events >>>>>> sub-package (https://review.gluster.org/18519). There is no python-jwt >>>>>> in RHEL/CentOS-7 so, we'll need to ship (and maintain!) this new package >>>>>> in the CentOS Storage SIG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will python-jwt become part of RHEL at one point? Which version will be >>>>>> included in that case? I would prefer not to have to maintain python-jwt >>>>>> longer than necessary, and when RHEL-7 ships this package, it should >>>>>> ideally update the version I need to add to the Storage SIG. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Obviously this delays packaging the update for CentOS.] >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Niels >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> packaging mailing list >>>>>> packaging@gluster.org >>>>>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging >>>> >>>> -- >>>> regards >>>> Aravinda VK >>>> >> >> >> -- >> regards >> Aravinda VK >> > _______________________________________________ > packaging mailing list > packaging@gluster.org > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging > -- Kaleb _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list packaging@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging