Originally we had about a hundred packages in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ceph/el9/ before they were wiped out in rhbz#2143742. I went back over the list of outstanding deps today. EPEL lacks only five packages now. I've built those into the Copr today.
You can enable it with "dnf copr enable -y ceph/el9" . I think we should add this command to the container Dockerfile, Teuthology tasks, install-deps.sh, or whatever needs to run on el9 that is missing these packages. These tickets track moving the final five builds from the Copr into EPEL9: python-asyncssh - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196046 python-pecan - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196045 python-routes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620 python-repoze-lru - no BZ yet python-logutils - provide karma here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6baae8389d I was interested to see almost all of these are already in progress . That final one (logutils) should go to EPEL's stable repo in a week (faster with karma). - Ken On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:00 AM Casey Bodley <cbod...@redhat.com> wrote: > > are there any volunteers willing to help make these python packages > available upstream? > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM Ernesto Puerta <epuer...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > 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, > > Ernesto > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:06 PM Ken Dreyer <kdre...@redhat.com> 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 <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
