Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
--David
[0] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3491795 [1] http://marc.info/?l=ceph-devel&m=131673402621436&w=2
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 22:59 -0400, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
--David
[0] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3491795 [1] http://marc.info/?l=ceph-devel&m=131673402621436&w=2
For what little my opinion is worth, I'd say go for it.
Jonathan
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:29 AM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
I would like to solicit thoughts on pushing this to F16.
I'm perfectly fine with it. You may want to ask FESCo for a formal exception, but speaking for myself I don't see any reason not to support pushing it into F16.
-- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:59 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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.
If it's a leaf package, I really don't have a problem with it. (Take that with 4 teaspoons of salt, given my vast packaging and policy experience.)
My question is: I am looking at the roadmap - seeing that .39 is due in a week - and wondering just how often we'll want to update?
Thoughts, comments, flames?
--David
[0] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3491795 [1] http://marc.info/?l=ceph-devel&m=131673402621436&w=2 _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
Peter
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
Peter
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.)
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
Peter
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:
Dependencies Resolved
============================================================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================================ Removing: ceph x86_64 0.31-3.fc16 @fedora 22 M Removing for dependencies: libvirt x86_64 0.9.6-2.fc16 @updates-testing 6.5 M qemu-common x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 847 k qemu-img x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 834 k qemu-kvm x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 0.0 qemu-system-x86 x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 12 M
Transaction Summary ============================================================================================================================================================ 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.
Peter
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Hi folks,
I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 to rawhide[0].
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[1], 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?
Peter
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:
Dependencies Resolved
============================================================================================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================================================================================================ Removing: ceph x86_64 0.31-3.fc16 @fedora 22 M Removing for dependencies: libvirt x86_64 0.9.6-2.fc16 @updates-testing 6.5 M qemu-common x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 847 k qemu-img x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 834 k qemu-kvm x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 0.0 qemu-system-x86 x86_64 2:0.15.1-2.fc16 @updates-testing 12 M
Transaction Summary
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.
Peter
Bah, that's what I get for running repoquery against F15 really really early in the morning.
And yes, it became a dependency because of RADOS support (technically the rados libraries only exist in Ceph.) Several folks have proposed creating ceph-libs to provide the libraries alone so ceph doesn't become a dependency, but that doesn't really solve this problem. Guess I'll dig much deeper into seeing if there were API/ABI changes.
And as for why qemu has a hard dependency on ceph, I don't know.
Bah, that's what I get for running repoquery against F15 really really early in the morning.
And yes, it became a dependency because of RADOS support (technically the rados libraries only exist in Ceph.) Several folks have proposed creating ceph-libs to provide the libraries alone so ceph doesn't become a dependency, but that doesn't really solve this problem. Guess I'll dig much deeper into seeing if there were API/ABI changes.
And as for why qemu has a hard dependency on ceph, I don't know.
Because RPM doesn't have a way to have "Suggests" rather than "Requires". Do you need this in f15 David? If you do then I think we should just do it, otherwise I think sticking to rawhide is probably best, no reason to get fedora bureaucracy involved if nobody needs it in F15. Thanks,
Josef
-
David Nalley -
Jared K. Smith -
Jonathan Dieter -
Josef Bacik -
Peter Robinson -
Robyn Bergeron