On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:12 PM Ken Dreyer <kdre...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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
this one just moved to ON_QA > python-pecan - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2196045 > python-routes - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2166620 pecan and routes are resolved > python-repoze-lru - no BZ yet Ken, do you know if there's any progress on this one? > python-logutils - provide karma here: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6baae8389d this one was resolved, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196790 > > 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
