[PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

This set fixes some issues in the spec file. 

I'm not sure what the reason for #35e5d74e5c5786bc91df5dc10b5c08c77305df4e
was. But I would revert it and fix the underlaying issues instead. Patch #2 
adds rbd-fuse to the file list and should fix build again. At least it
works for us at SUSE/RHEL/CentOS in the openSUSE build service.

Danny Al-Gaaf (6):
  Revert "Don't install rbd-fuse binary"
  ceph.spec.in: add rbd-fuse
  ceph.spec.in: move libcephfs_jni.so to ceph-devel
  ceph.spec.in: don't move libcephfs_jni files around
  ceph.spec.in: extend fix for libedit-devel on special SUSE versions
  ceph.spec.in: fix file section for ceph-resource-agents

 ceph.spec.in    | 13 ++++++++-----
 src/Makefile.am |  4 +---
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 1/6] Revert "Don't install rbd-fuse binary"

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

This reverts commit 35e5d74e5c5786bc91df5dc10b5c08c77305df4e.

-> fix build instead
---
 src/Makefile.am | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/Makefile.am b/src/Makefile.am
index 996fd4e..c30c0c1 100644
--- a/src/Makefile.am
+++ b/src/Makefile.am
@@ -26,8 +26,6 @@ bin_PROGRAMS =
 # like bin_PROGRAMS, but these targets are only built for debug builds
 bin_DEBUGPROGRAMS =
 sbin_PROGRAMS =
-noinst_PROGRAMS =
-
 sbin_SCRIPTS = \
 	ceph-disk-prepare \
 	ceph-disk-activate \
@@ -166,7 +164,7 @@ bin_PROGRAMS += ceph-fuse
 rbd_fuse_SOURCES = rbd_fuse/rbd-fuse.c
 rbd_fuse_LDADD = -lfuse librados.la librbd.la $(LIBGLOBAL_LDA)
 rbd_fuse_CXXFLAGS = ${AM_CXXFLAGS}
-noinst_PROGRAMS += rbd-fuse
+bin_PROGRAMS += rbd-fuse
 
 endif
 
-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 2/6] ceph.spec.in: add rbd-fuse

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Add %{_bindir}/rbd-fuse to the ceph-fuse subpackage.

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index b98ae06..38aef98 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -392,6 +392,7 @@ fi
 %files fuse
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
 %{_bindir}/ceph-fuse
+%{_bindir}/rbd-fuse
 %{_mandir}/man8/ceph-fuse.8*
 /sbin/mount.fuse.ceph
 
-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 3/6] ceph.spec.in: move libcephfs_jni.so to ceph-devel

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Move libcephfs_jni.so to the ceph-devel package since so-files they
shouldn't be part of the library package.

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index 38aef98..67a4915 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ fi
 %{_libdir}/libcephfs.so
 %{_libdir}/librbd.so
 %{_libdir}/librados.so
+/usr/lib/jni/libcephfs_jni.so
 
 #################################################################################
 %files radosgw
@@ -561,7 +562,7 @@ fi
 
 %files -n libcephfs_jni1
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-/usr/lib/jni/libcephfs_jni.so*
+/usr/lib/jni/libcephfs_jni.so.*
 
 %files -n cephfs-java
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 4/6] ceph.spec.in: don't move libcephfs_jni files around

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Don't move libcephfs_jni files around from %{_libdir} to /usr/lib/jni/
in the buildroot. They should be placed in %{_libdir} as all libs.

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in | 8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index 67a4915..f6a9006 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -280,10 +280,6 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/log/ceph/
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_localstatedir}/run/ceph/
 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/ceph/
 
-#  Relocate java packages to expected locations in buildroot.
-mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/jni
-mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib64/libcephfs_jni.so* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/jni/.
-
 # udev rules
 install -D -m 644 udev/50-rbd.rules $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/udev/rules.d/50-rbd.rules
 
@@ -414,7 +410,7 @@ fi
 %{_libdir}/libcephfs.so
 %{_libdir}/librbd.so
 %{_libdir}/librados.so
-/usr/lib/jni/libcephfs_jni.so
+%{_libdir}/libcephfs_jni.so
 
 #################################################################################
 %files radosgw
@@ -562,7 +558,7 @@ fi
 
 %files -n libcephfs_jni1
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-/usr/lib/jni/libcephfs_jni.so.*
+%{_libdir}/libcephfs_jni.so.*
 
 %files -n cephfs-java
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 5/6] ceph.spec.in: extend fix for libedit-devel on special SUSE versions

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Extend fix for libedit-devel on special SUSE versions, use ncurses
also on src/ocf/Makefile and src/java/Makefile

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index f6a9006..0db7792 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ export RPM_OPT_FLAGS=`echo $RPM_OPT_FLAGS | sed -e 's/i386/i486/'`
 sed -i -e "s/-lcurses/-lncurses/g" Makefile
 sed -i -e "s/-lcurses/-lncurses/g" src/Makefile
 sed -i -e "s/-lcurses/-lncurses/g" man/Makefile
+sed -i -e "s/-lcurses/-lncurses/g" src/ocf/Makefile
+sed -i -e "s/-lcurses/-lncurses/g" src/java/Makefile
 %endif
 
 make -j$(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN)
-- 
1.8.1.1

[PATCH 6/6] ceph.spec.in: fix file section for ceph-resource-agents

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Create needed dirs (/usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/ceph) for the ceph-resource-agents
subpackage.

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
---
 ceph.spec.in | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in
index 0db7792..668edca 100644
--- a/ceph.spec.in
+++ b/ceph.spec.in
@@ -446,6 +446,9 @@ fi
 %if %{with ocf}
 %files resource-agents
 %defattr(0755,root,root,-)
+%dir /usr/lib/ocf
+%dir /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d
+%dir /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/ceph
 /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/%{name}/*
 %endif
 
-- 
1.8.1.1

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Gregory Farnum]

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Danny Al-Gaaf wrote:
> This set fixes some issues in the spec file. 
> 
> I'm not sure what the reason for #35e5d74e5c5786bc91df5dc10b5c08c77305df4e
> was. But I would revert it and fix the underlaying issues instead.


That is a pretty obtuse commit message, but it was actually because while rbd-fuse is ready to be in-tree, we don't think it's ready for people to be using; there are some undocumented gotchas involved with it and not a lot of testing. :)

I'll let others comment on the Java library moves and other packaging changes.
-Greg

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Am 30.01.2013 19:07, schrieb Gregory Farnum:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Danny Al-Gaaf wrote:
>> This set fixes some issues in the spec file.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what the reason for
>> #35e5d74e5c5786bc91df5dc10b5c08c77305df4e was. But I would revert
>> it and fix the underlaying issues instead.
> 
> 
> That is a pretty obtuse commit message, but it was actually because
> while rbd-fuse is ready to be in-tree, we don't think it's ready for
> people to be using; there are some undocumented gotchas involved with
> it and not a lot of testing. :)

Hm, but this is git master and not a released ceph version or the next
tree. IMO rbd-fuse should be installed in the master branch to be
tested. Otherwise it will be build but maybe never tested by others than
developers which know it's there.

> I'll let others comment on the Java library moves and other packaging
> changes. -Greg

Only an additional comment: I've moved the libcephfs_jni.* files to
%{_libdir} because this is what SUSE already do for e.g. the *.so files
in the libjnidispatch package.

Danny

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Sage Weil]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Danny Al-Gaaf wrote:
> Am 30.01.2013 19:07, schrieb Gregory Farnum:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Danny Al-Gaaf wrote:
> >> This set fixes some issues in the spec file.
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure what the reason for
> >> #35e5d74e5c5786bc91df5dc10b5c08c77305df4e was. But I would revert
> >> it and fix the underlaying issues instead.
> > 
> > 
> > That is a pretty obtuse commit message, but it was actually because
> > while rbd-fuse is ready to be in-tree, we don't think it's ready for
> > people to be using; there are some undocumented gotchas involved with
> > it and not a lot of testing. :)
> 
> Hm, but this is git master and not a released ceph version or the next
> tree. IMO rbd-fuse should be installed in the master branch to be
> tested. Otherwise it will be build but maybe never tested by others than
> developers which know it's there.

I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just like ceph-fuse.  
I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is before it goes into the 
package; as long as it is separate, people can not install it, and the 
distros can keep it out of their supported repos as they like.

s

> 
> > I'll let others comment on the Java library moves and other packaging
> > changes. -Greg
> 
> Only an additional comment: I've moved the libcephfs_jni.* files to
> %{_libdir} because this is what SUSE already do for e.g. the *.so files
> in the libjnidispatch package.
> 
> Danny
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Dan Mick]

On 01/30/2013 11:55 AM, Sage Weil wrote:

> I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just like ceph-fuse.
> I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is before it goes into the
> package; as long as it is separate, people can not install it, and the
> distros can keep it out of their supported repos as they like.

I like that plan a lot better.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Dan Mick]

On 01/30/2013 09:08 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
>
>
> On 01/30/2013 11:55 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>
>> I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just like
>> ceph-fuse.
>> I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is before it goes into the
>> package; as long as it is separate, people can not install it, and the
>> distros can keep it out of their supported repos as they like.
>
> I like that plan a lot better.

and the major reason it wasn't yet done is that there are no manpages, 
tests, etc., but I wanted this to be available to experimenters.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Gary Lowell]

I'll pick up these patches and create an rbd-fuse package.

Cheers,
Gary

On Jan 30, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Dan Mick wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01/30/2013 09:08 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/30/2013 11:55 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just like
>>> ceph-fuse.
>>> I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is before it goes into the
>>> package; as long as it is separate, people can not install it, and the
>>> distros can keep it out of their supported repos as they like.
>> 
>> I like that plan a lot better.
> 
> and the major reason it wasn't yet done is that there are no manpages, tests, etc., but I wanted this to be available to experimenters.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Gary Lowell]

The patches have been applied to the wip-rpm-update3 branch.  Additionally, rbd-fuse has been put into it's own package.

Please have a look and let me know if that works for everyone.

Thanks,
Gary

On Jan 30, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Dan Mick wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01/30/2013 09:08 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/30/2013 11:55 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>> 
>>> I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just like
>>> ceph-fuse.
>>> I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is before it goes into the
>>> package; as long as it is separate, people can not install it, and the
>>> distros can keep it out of their supported repos as they like.
>> 
>> I like that plan a lot better.
> 
> and the major reason it wasn't yet done is that there are no manpages, tests, etc., but I wanted this to be available to experimenters.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix build (ceph.spec)

[Danny Al-Gaaf]

Hi Gary,

seems to work fine. Feel free to check [1] for build results
(i586/x86_64) on openSUSE 11.4-Factory, SLE11-SP2, Fedora 16-18, RHEL6,
CentOS6, Ubuntu 12.10 (the source of the package is currently a merge of
master and wip-rpm-update3).

Danny

[1]
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=ceph&project=home%3Adalgaaf%3Aceph

Am 01.02.2013 08:00, schrieb Gary Lowell:
> The patches have been applied to the wip-rpm-update3 branch.
> Additionally, rbd-fuse has been put into it's own package.
> 
> Please have a look and let me know if that works for everyone.
> 
> Thanks, Gary
> 
> On Jan 30, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/30/2013 09:08 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01/30/2013 11:55 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think the end goal is to build an rbd-fuse package, just
>>>> like ceph-fuse. I'm not sure it matters how mature the tool is
>>>> before it goes into the package; as long as it is separate,
>>>> people can not install it, and the distros can keep it out of
>>>> their supported repos as they like.
>>> 
>>> I like that plan a lot better.
>> 
>> and the major reason it wasn't yet done is that there are no
>> manpages, tests, etc., but I wanted this to be available to
>> experimenters. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
>> "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to
>> majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>