Yeah, unfortunately we had all of these in the Copr, and some infrastructure change deleted them: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143742
So the quickest route back will be to rebuild the missing-from-EPEL packages with the newer Copr settings, and I have written notes for that in https://github.com/ktdreyer/ceph-el9 And the longer-term solution is to get the packages into EPEL proper. - Ken On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:04 PM Casey Bodley <cbod...@redhat.com> wrote: > > i would hope that packaging for epel9 would be relatively easy, given > that the epel8 packages already exist. as a first step, we'd need to > build a full list of the missing packages. the tracker issue only > complains about python3-asyncssh python3-pecan and python3-routes, but > some of their dependencies may be missing too > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:06 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
