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 <epuer...@redhat.com> 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 <cbod...@redhat.com> 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 <epuer...@redhat.com> 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 -- d...@ceph.io >> > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-le...@ceph.io >> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
