Re: Ceph Upstream Tarball + Re: Ceph status for Wheezy

Re: Ceph Upstream Tarball + Re: Ceph status for Wheezy

[Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2866 bytes --]

Hi James, Sage,

Let me answer you both at once.

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:01 +0100, James Page wrote:
> On 11/07/12 01:30, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > You are right, the watch file is outdated.
 An updated watch file is attached. Please commit it Sage. It goes for
numbers only, so 0.48argonaut will be 0.48 .

> Ah-ha!  Thanks for this information - I had not realised the leveldb
> and libs3 source was overlaid outside of git.
 Sage still consider it better, to be able to build everything needed
from one tarball. I've two small patches to build with system leveldb
and libs3 instead.

> This creates a short term issue for me in that leveldb and libs3 are
> not currently in Ubuntu main (MIR is raised but still pending review
> and approval) so not having the bundled source for these libraries is
> a pain as I can't easily use the same upstream tarball that you are
> using [...]
 Is there any ETA when/if it will be in Ubuntu main? Sage, would you
reconsider the all-in-one tarball if Debian and Ubuntu will have leveldb
and libs3 in their package list? I _may_ become a RedHat / Fedora
package maintainer as well and when it happens, I'll add them to those
distributions as well.

> - guess I could plugin the required bundles in the interim as
> patches as I would like to push 0.48 to quantal this week.
 You may wait a bit. At least please see:
[ Sage and me about "Ceph status for Wheezy" ]
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 09:18 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > What do I miss? Manpages for
> > ceph-disk-activate , ceph-disk-prepare , rest-bench and maybe
> > librados-config .
> Okay, those should be pretty simple.  There will be a point release before 
> too long that includes all of this stuff.  If there is anything in your 
> packaging that isn't fixed upstream let me know.
 It sounds 0.48.1 may happen within a week time. I've added symbol
versioning, but don't know if it has any use. Currently kvm doesn't
work when compiled with previous version of Ceph, see Debian bug
#679686[1]. In answer, my symbol files are created with 0.47.2 and
updated to 0.48 . Didn't go more back with versions and don't know how
much Ceph libraries will change in the future.
Sage, can you please give us more detail how do you plan the releases?
Is there any plan for more stable releases on every (say) 3 months, with
bugfixing only? Should we follow the actual development tree, no matter
what?

> I'm hoping to get to a point where the packaging is the same; if
> nothing else it saves extra work!
 Sure, that would be better. I've a package of v0.48 ready to upload[2],
but can wait some days if you would like to check what I may need to
merge from your package.

Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679686
[2] dget -x http://www.barcikacomp.hu/gcs/ceph_0.48-1.dsc

[-- Attachment #1.2: watch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 72 bytes --]

version=3
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tags .*/zipball/v(\d[\d\.]+).*

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Ceph Upstream Tarball + Re: Ceph status for Wheezy

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> Hi James, Sage,
> 
> Let me answer you both at once.
> 
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:01 +0100, James Page wrote:
> > On 11/07/12 01:30, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > > You are right, the watch file is outdated.
>  An updated watch file is attached. Please commit it Sage. It goes for
> numbers only, so 0.48argonaut will be 0.48 .

Why leave off the argonaut?  The intent was to be able to tell from e.g. 
dpkg -l ceph that this was the argonaut stable release, without having to 
figure out through some other channel that 0.48 is special.

> > Ah-ha!  Thanks for this information - I had not realised the leveldb
> > and libs3 source was overlaid outside of git.
>  Sage still consider it better, to be able to build everything needed
> from one tarball. I've two small patches to build with system leveldb
> and libs3 instead.

It's useful for the tarball, and for our qa infrastructure.  The only 
reason the debs are using the system libraries is because I'd need to 
backport the libs3 and libleveldb dependencies and include those in our 
repo along with the debs we build.

> > This creates a short term issue for me in that leveldb and libs3 are
> > not currently in Ubuntu main (MIR is raised but still pending review
> > and approval) so not having the bundled source for these libraries is
> > a pain as I can't easily use the same upstream tarball that you are
> > using [...]
>  Is there any ETA when/if it will be in Ubuntu main? Sage, would you
> reconsider the all-in-one tarball if Debian and Ubuntu will have leveldb
> and libs3 in their package list? I _may_ become a RedHat / Fedora
> package maintainer as well and when it happens, I'll add them to those
> distributions as well.

Again, using the bundled libs3/leveldb is completely optional.  My only 
concern is that it be an easy option for those trying to build on 
weird/old systems.  I'm all for using the separately packaged ones when 
possible.

> > - guess I could plugin the required bundles in the interim as
> > patches as I would like to push 0.48 to quantal this week.
>  You may wait a bit. At least please see:
> [ Sage and me about "Ceph status for Wheezy" ]
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 09:18 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > What do I miss? Manpages for
> > > ceph-disk-activate , ceph-disk-prepare , rest-bench and maybe
> > > librados-config .
> > Okay, those should be pretty simple.  There will be a point release before 
> > too long that includes all of this stuff.  If there is anything in your 
> > packaging that isn't fixed upstream let me know.
>  It sounds 0.48.1 may happen within a week time. I've added symbol
> versioning, but don't know if it has any use. Currently kvm doesn't
> work when compiled with previous version of Ceph, see Debian bug
> #679686[1]. In answer, my symbol files are created with 0.47.2 and
> updated to 0.48 . Didn't go more back with versions and don't know how
> much Ceph libraries will change in the future.
> Sage, can you please give us more detail how do you plan the releases?
> Is there any plan for more stable releases on every (say) 3 months, with
> bugfixing only? Should we follow the actual development tree, no matter
> what?

Hrm.  We've been adding methods to the library without bumping the 
SONAME, and then ensuring that users only use the new symbols if the 
version info in the header is sufficiently recent.  This means you can't 
compile code against a new -dev package and expect it to work on an older 
library.  My understanding is that this is completely okay, as long as the 
code compiled against the old library still works with the new library 
(i.e. symbols aren't removed and their functionality isn't changed).

Am I misunderstanding the bug?

thanks-
sage

> 
> > I'm hoping to get to a point where the packaging is the same; if
> > nothing else it saves extra work!
>  Sure, that would be better. I've a package of v0.48 ready to upload[2],
> but can wait some days if you would like to check what I may need to
> merge from your package.
> 
> Cheers,
> Laszlo/GCS
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679686
> [2] dget -x http://www.barcikacomp.hu/gcs/ceph_0.48-1.dsc
> 

Re: Ceph Upstream Tarball + Re: Ceph status for Wheezy

[James Page]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2015 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 12/07/12 00:32, Sage Weil wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:01 +0100, James Page wrote:
>>>>> On 11/07/12 01:30, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
>>>>>>> You are right, the watch file is outdated.
>>> An updated watch file is attached. Please commit it Sage. It
>>> goes for numbers only, so 0.48argonaut will be 0.48 .
> Why leave off the argonaut?  The intent was to be able to tell from
> e.g. dpkg -l ceph that this was the argonaut stable release,
> without having to figure out through some other channel that 0.48
> is special.
> 

Laszlo - I've updated your watch file and my orig-tar.sh to produce
something that I think works well and automatically - see attached.

Sage - although this technically works with the versioning algorithm in
Debian/Ubuntu I'm uncomfortable using the stable release code name in
the version string.

I would suggest that we document something in debian/NEWS for the 0.48
release version that details that this is the argonaut stable release.


- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=LhJK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: watch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 97 bytes --]

version=3
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tags .*/tarball/v(\d[\d\.]+).* debian debian/orig-tar.sh


[-- Attachment #3: orig-tar.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-shellscript, Size: 294 bytes --]

Re: Ceph Upstream Tarball + Re: Ceph status for Wheezy

[James Page]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Laszlo

On 11/07/12 22:43, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
>>> I'm hoping to get to a point where the packaging is the same;
>>> if nothing else it saves extra work!
> Sure, that would be better. I've a package of v0.48 ready to
> upload[2], but can wait some days if you would like to check what I
> may need to merge from your package.

The only thing I can see that makes sense ATM would be the split out
of ceph-mds and ceph-fs-common packages as has been done in Ubuntu and
upstream.  This would help minimise the delta right now.

Would this present and problem considering that Wheezy is now frozen?

Also how are you tracking upstream packaging changes into the Debian
packages?  I think it would be nice to agree a workflow Upstream ->
Debian -> Ubuntu if one is not already in place.

I'll hold off doing anything with 0.48 in Ubuntu until we figure out
what's happening in Debian.

- -- 
James Page
Ubuntu Core Developer
Debian Maintainer
james.page@ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=TNFi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----