On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley <david(a)gnsa.us> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley <david(a)gnsa.us> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37
>> to rawhide.
>> I would like to solicit thoughts on pushing this to F16.
>> While this fixes 5 bugs in Fedora's bug tracker (and to be fair, 2 of
>> them are easily fixed in the current version) there are a number of
>> bugs fixed in the 4 months since 0.31 was released.
>> The downside - a number of binaries and libraries have changed name,
>> Technically this probably runs afoul of the updates policy, but ceph
>> appears to be a leaf package if repoquery is to be believed, and it's
>> still on the same major version number :). It's also true that there
>> isn't really the idea of a supported version of Ceph since it's still
>> very rapidly in development and considered quite bleeding edge.
>> Thoughts, comments, flames?
> What's the impact? Are there api/abi changes that would need updates
> to packages that depend on ceph?
The impact would be that folks would have different binary names, and
of course a version change. The binary name change is really the only
real issue that I see that makes it run afoul of the guidelines. (e.g.
user experience is changed.
Ceph appears to be a leaf package (if repoquery is to be believed.)
Doesn't appear to be to me:
Removing for dependencies:
Remove 6 Packages
This is why I queried the impact. Does anything in libvirt/qemu need
to be rebuild for a new soname, or patched to deal with the
aforementioned binary name change?
As a side note I'm not sure why quemu needs a hard dependency on ceph,
its very usable without it and could remain an option.