[ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
That’s a major misinterpretation of how it actually is in reality. Sorry just had to state that, obviously not the proper mailing list to discuss it on. Best regards Tobias > On 4 Aug 2023, at 09:25, Jens Galsgaard wrote: > > Your are right. > > Centos stream is alpha > Fedora is beta > RHEL is stable > > Alma/Rocky/Oracle are based on RHEL > > Venlig hilsen - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Kind Regards, > Jens Galsgaard > > Gitservice.dk > Mob: +45 28864340 > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Marc > Sendt: Friday, 4 August 2023 09.04 > Til: Konstantin Shalygin ; dobr...@gmu.edu > Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io > Emne: [ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9 > > But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. > Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream > versions, not? > > >> >> In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have >> outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 >> or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 >> version on Alma still 1.19 >> >> You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to >> resolve dependency issues >> >> >>> >>> I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere. >>> >>> I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and >> I'm getting the error >>> >>> Error: >>> Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph- >> base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 >>> - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- >> 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 >>> - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by >>> ceph- >> base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 >>> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- >> nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) >>> >>> Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only >>> provides >> 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I >> set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date). >>> >>> Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably >>> build >> it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep >> it clean with the same distro. >>> ___ > ___ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to > ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > ___ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
Konstantin Shalygin wrote: > Hi, > > In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated > versions > of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For > example is a > golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19 > > You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve > dependency > issues > > > k By definition, the stable version of anything is going to have "outdated versions of packages," so that's not really what's going on here. You did, unintentionally, give me the clue I needed, though. I accessed the Ceph repos from Rocky's Extras repo, which includes centos-release-ceph-quincy centos-release-ceph-pacific.noarch1.0-2.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras centos-release-ceph-quincy.noarch 1.0-2.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras centos-release-cloud.noarch 1-1.el9 CEC_Rocky_Linux_9_Rocky_92_extras Which is pointing to 9-stream. (I do remember seeing "9s" in the repo names, but I didn't connect it with Stream, since I don't do Stream in production and, honestly, I don't have enough time at work to do Stream in test, so...) >From /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Ceph-Quincy.repo: metalink=https://mirrors.centos.org/metalink?repo=centos-storage-sig-ceph-quincy-9-stream=$basearch Which is why I'm getting different dependencies. THAT I can take to the Rocky folks to get sorted. I can see where that would cause confusion, as it did in my case. When I originally installed Ceph, I was using RHEL, not Rocky and I didn't use (or have?) the Extras repo. I copied the repo over and edited it to point to Ceph Reef EL9, which installed fine -- and confused me further, but makes sense now since it wasn't for Stream. I'll roll my own repo files and not use the centos-release-ceph-* from Extras. Hopefully, this saves someone else a bit of grief later! Thanks! ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
Your are right. Centos stream is alpha Fedora is beta RHEL is stable Alma/Rocky/Oracle are based on RHEL Venlig hilsen - Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Kind Regards, Jens Galsgaard Gitservice.dk Mob: +45 28864340 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Marc Sendt: Friday, 4 August 2023 09.04 Til: Konstantin Shalygin ; dobr...@gmu.edu Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Emne: [ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9 But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not? > > In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have > outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 > or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 > version on Alma still 1.19 > > You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to > resolve dependency issues > > > > > > I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere. > > > > I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and > I'm getting the error > > > > Error: > > Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph- > base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 > > - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- > 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > > - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by > > ceph- > base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- > nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) > > > > Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only > > provides > 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I > set up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date). > > > > Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably > > build > it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep > it clean with the same distro. > > ___ ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
But Rocky Linux 9 is the continuation of what CentOS would have been on el9. Afaik is ceph being developed on elX distributions and not the 'trial' stream versions, not? > > In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated > versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS > Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on > Alma still 1.19 > > You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to > resolve dependency issues > > > > > > I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere. > > > > I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and > I'm getting the error > > > > Error: > > Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package ceph- > base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 > > - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by ceph-base- > 2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > > - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by ceph- > base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '-- > nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) > > > > Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides > 0.7-7. CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set > up that repo on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date). > > > > Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build > it from a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep > it clean with the same distro. > > ___ ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
[ceph-users] Re: Ceph Quincy and liburing.so.2 on Rocky Linux 9
Hi, In most cases the 'Alternative' distro like Alma or Rocky have outdated versions of packages, if we compared it with CentOS Stream 8 or CentOS Stream 9. For example is a golang package, on c8s is a 1.20 version on Alma still 1.19 You can try to use c8s/c9s or try to contribute to your distro to resolve dependency issues k Sent from my iPhone > On 4 Aug 2023, at 02:05, dobr...@gmu.edu wrote: > > I've been digging and I can't see that this has come up anywhere. > > I'm trying to update a client from Pacific 17.2.3-2 to 17.2.6-4 and I'm > getting the error > > Error: > Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package > ceph-base-2:17.2.3-2.el9s.x86_64 > - nothing provides liburing.so.2()(64bit) needed by > ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > - nothing provides liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit) needed by > ceph-base-2:17.2.6-4.el9s.x86_64 > (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to > use not only best candidate packages) > > Did Ceph Pacific switch to requiring liburing 2? Rocky 9 only provides 0.7-7. > CentOS stream seems to have 1.0.7-3 (at least back to when I set up that repo > on Foreman; I don't remember if I'm keeping it up-to-date). > > Can I/should I just do --nobest when updating? I could probably build it from > a source RPM from another RH-based distro, but I'd rather keep it clean with > the same distro. > ___ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io ___ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
