Ceph

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley <david at 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.