dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Sage Weil]

As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.

"Dropping" them would mean:

 - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
jewel) would not be tested on these distros.

 - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
releases.

 - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
future bugfix point releases.

 - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
packaging and/or build environment to make it work.

So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
Specifically,

 CentOS6 / RHEL6
 Ubuntu precise 12.04
 Debian wheezy

Would anyone miss them?

In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
about packaging and testing them properly.)

Thanks!
sage

Re: dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Jan “Zviratko” Schermer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2735 bytes --]

I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
is not right.

You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
once we build a project on top of it

CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
vendors, maybe...

Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.

Just my 2 cents...

Jan

> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
> 
> "Dropping" them would mean:
> 
> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
> 
> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
> releases.
> 
> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
> future bugfix point releases.
> 
> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
> 
> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
> Specifically,
> 
> CentOS6 / RHEL6
> Ubuntu precise 12.04
> Debian wheezy
> 
> Would anyone miss them?
> 
> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
> about packaging and testing them properly.)
> 
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4102 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Jan “Zviratko” Schermer]

I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
is not right.

You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
once we build a project on top of it

CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
vendors, maybe...

Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.

Just my 2 cents...

Jan

> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
> 
> "Dropping" them would mean:
> 
> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
> 
> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
> releases.
> 
> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
> future bugfix point releases.
> 
> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
> 
> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
> Specifically,
> 
> CentOS6 / RHEL6
> Ubuntu precise 12.04
> Debian wheezy
> 
> Would anyone miss them?
> 
> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
> about packaging and testing them properly.)
> 
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

--
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: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Jan Schermer]

I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
is not right.

You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
once we build a project on top of it

CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
vendors, maybe...

Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.

Just my 2 cents...

Jan

P.S. sorry if this reached your more than once, my mail client is having a
very baaad day

> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
> 
> "Dropping" them would mean:
> 
> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
> 
> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
> releases.
> 
> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
> future bugfix point releases.
> 
> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
> 
> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
> Specifically,
> 
> CentOS6 / RHEL6
> Ubuntu precise 12.04
> Debian wheezy
> 
> Would anyone miss them?
> 
> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
> about packaging and testing them properly.)
> 
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

--
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: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Handzik, Joe]

So, essentially, you'd vote that all LTS/enterprise releases be supported until their vendor's (canonical, Suse, red hat) designated EOL date? Not voting either way, just trying to put a date stamp on some of this.

Joe

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer <zviratko@zviratko.net> wrote:
> 
> I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
> is not right.
> 
> You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
> ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
> once we build a project on top of it
> 
> CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
> apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
> Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
> We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
> because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
> vendors, maybe...
> 
> Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
> edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> Jan
> 
>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
>> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
>> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
>> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
>> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
>> 
>> "Dropping" them would mean:
>> 
>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
>> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
>> 
>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
>> releases.
>> 
>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
>> future bugfix point releases.
>> 
>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
>> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
>> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
>> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
>> 
>> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
>> Specifically,
>> 
>> CentOS6 / RHEL6
>> Ubuntu precise 12.04
>> Debian wheezy
>> 
>> Would anyone miss them?
>> 
>> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
>> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
>> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
>> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
>> about packaging and testing them properly.)
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> sage
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> 
> --
> 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

Re: dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Jon Meacham]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3165 bytes --]

If hammer and firefly bugfix releases will still be packaged for these distros, I don't see a problem with this. Anyone who is operating an existing LTS deployment on CentOS 6, etc. will continue to receive fixes for said LTS release.

Jon

From: ceph-users on behalf of Jan “Zviratko” Schermer
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:29 AM
To: Sage Weil
Cc: ceph-devel, "ceph-users@ceph.com<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.com>"
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
is not right.

You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
once we build a project on top of it

CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
vendors, maybe...

Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.

Just my 2 cents...

Jan

On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com<mailto:sweil@redhat.com>> wrote:

As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper
builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the
systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for
centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to
maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.

"Dropping" them would mean:

- Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and
jewel) would not be tested on these distros.

- We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com<http://ceph.com> for new
releases.

- We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for
future bugfix point releases.

- The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the
burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on
precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the
packaging and/or build environment to make it work.

So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.
Specifically,

CentOS6 / RHEL6
Ubuntu precise 12.04
Debian wheezy

Would anyone miss them?

In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit
entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing
upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The
sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry
about packaging and testing them properly.)

Thanks!
sage
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com<mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5687 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Jan Schermer]

Not at all.
We have this: http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/

I would expect that whatever distribution I install Ceph LTS release on will
be supported for the time specified.
That means if I install Hammer on CentOS 6 now it will stay supported
until 3Q/2016.

Of course if in the meantime the distribution itself becomes unsupported
then it makes sense to stop supporting it for Ceph as well, but that’s
probably not the case here:

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

I don’t expect Ceph to be supported until EOL of the distro.

Jan



> On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:34, Handzik, Joe <joseph.t.handzik@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> So, essentially, you'd vote that all LTS/enterprise releases be supported until their vendor's (canonical, Suse, red hat) designated EOL date? Not voting either way, just trying to put a date stamp on some of this.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer <zviratko@zviratko.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this
>> is not right.
>> 
>> You should lege artis support every distribution the LTS release could have
>> ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we rely on
>> once we build a project on top of it
>> 
>> CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, enterprise
>> apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining their LTS
>> Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly.
>> We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS
>> because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those
>> vendors, maybe...
>> 
>> Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding
>> edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work.
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents...
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
>>> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the 
>>> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
>>> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
>>> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
>>> 
>>> "Dropping" them would mean:
>>> 
>>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
>>> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
>>> 
>>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
>>> releases.
>>> 
>>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
>>> future bugfix point releases.
>>> 
>>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
>>> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
>>> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
>>> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
>>> 
>>> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
>>> Specifically,
>>> 
>>> CentOS6 / RHEL6
>>> Ubuntu precise 12.04
>>> Debian wheezy
>>> 
>>> Would anyone miss them?
>>> 
>>> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
>>> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
>>> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The 
>>> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
>>> about packaging and testing them properly.)
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> sage
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> 
>> --
>> 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

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Brian Kroth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2214 bytes --]

Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 2015-07-30 06:54:
>As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper
>builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the
>systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for
>centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to
>maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
>
>"Dropping" them would mean:
>
> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and
>jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
>
> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new
>releases.
>
> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for
>future bugfix point releases.
>
> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the
>burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on
>precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the
>packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
>
>So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.
>Specifically,
>
> CentOS6 / RHEL6
> Ubuntu precise 12.04
> Debian wheezy
>
>Would anyone miss them?
>
>In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit
>entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing
>upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The
>sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry
>about packaging and testing them properly.)
>
>Thanks!
>sage

As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian 
Jessie (see also [1]), I am still running Debian Wheezy and as that is 
supposed to be supported for another ~4 years by Debian, it would be 
very nice if there were at least stability and security fixes backported 
for the upstream ceph package repositories for that platform.

Additionally, I'll note that I'm personally likely to continue to use 
sysvinit so long as I still can, even when I am able to make the switch 
to Jessie.

Thanks,
Brian

[1] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg19959.html>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Robert LeBlanc]

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

I agree that for the distros and version in question, Ceph releases
already released on them should provide bug support until EoL of Ceph
or the distro version, whichever is shorter.
Since we are so far into Infernalis and Jewel development cycle, would
it be better to make Jewel the last supported release on these
distros/versions? It would not be as much as a surprise and give
admins a little more time to transition (we are currently looking to
migrate to CentOS7 on the client side, but it will take some time so
this is also a personal request). I can understand and appreciate that
the Ceph team is stretched thin trying to maintain such a large
breadth of compatibility.

Thank you for reading,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
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=m+W6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
Robert LeBlanc
PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904  C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1


On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper
> builds and packages for older distros.  For example, as we make the
> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for
> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to
> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
>
> "Dropping" them would mean:
>
>  - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and
> jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
>
>  - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new
> releases.
>
>  - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for
> future bugfix point releases.
>
>  - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the
> burden would be on them.  For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on
> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the
> packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
>
> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.
> Specifically,
>
>  CentOS6 / RHEL6
>  Ubuntu precise 12.04
>  Debian wheezy
>
> Would anyone miss them?
>
> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit
> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing
> upstart files for just a bit longer).  That would be a relief.  (The
> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry
> about packaging and testing them properly.)
>
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Alexandre DERUMIER]

>>As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian 
>>Jessie (see also [1]),

Gitbuilder is already done for jessie

http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-jessie-x86_64-basic/

@Sage : Don't known if something is blocking to release package officially ?



----- Mail original -----
De: "Brian Kroth" <bpkroth@gmail.com>
À: "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com>
Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@ceph.com>
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 17:58:12
Objet: Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> 2015-07-30 06:54: 
>As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
>builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the 
>systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
>centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
>maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work. 
> 
>"Dropping" them would mean: 
> 
> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
>jewel) would not be tested on these distros. 
> 
> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
>releases. 
> 
> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
>future bugfix point releases. 
> 
> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
>burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
>precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
>packaging and/or build environment to make it work. 
> 
>So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros. 
>Specifically, 
> 
> CentOS6 / RHEL6 
> Ubuntu precise 12.04 
> Debian wheezy 
> 
>Would anyone miss them? 
> 
>In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
>entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
>upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The 
>sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
>about packaging and testing them properly.) 
> 
>Thanks! 
>sage 

As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian 
Jessie (see also [1]), I am still running Debian Wheezy and as that is 
supposed to be supported for another ~4 years by Debian, it would be 
very nice if there were at least stability and security fixes backported 
for the upstream ceph package repositories for that platform. 

Additionally, I'll note that I'm personally likely to continue to use 
sysvinit so long as I still can, even when I am able to make the switch 
to Jessie. 

Thanks, 
Brian 

[1] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg19959.html> 

_______________________________________________ 
ceph-users mailing list 
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com 
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com 
--
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: dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 853 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT), Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
wrote:


> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.  
> Specifically,
> 
>  CentOS6 / RHEL6
>  Ubuntu precise 12.04
>  Debian wheezy
> 
> Would anyone miss them?
> 

Well, Centos 6 will be supported to 2020, and centos 7 was released a
year ago so I'd imagine a lot of people haven't migrated yet and
migration process is nontrivial if you already did some modificiations
to c6 (read: fix broken as fuck init scripts for few apps)
-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski, Administrator

Efigence S. A.
ul. Wołoska 9a, 02-583 Warszawa
T: [+48] 22 380 13 13
F: [+48] 22 380 13 14
E: mariusz.gronczewski-EWQ+Go7UwTxWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org
<mailto:mariusz.gronczewski-EWQ+Go7UwTxWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3778 bytes --]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >>As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian 
> >>Jessie (see also [1]),
> 
> Gitbuilder is already done for jessie
> 
> http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-jessie-x86_64-basic/
> 
> @Sage : Don't known if something is blocking to release package officially ?

I don't think there are specific blockers except Alfredo's time.  We need 
to set up another release build target machine in Jenkins.  Alfredo's been 
rearchitecting the release build process and I've been hoping he can avoid 
touching the old ball of duct tape and add Jessie to the new hotness, but 
I'm not sure what the timeline looks like... Alfredo?

sage


> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Brian Kroth" <bpkroth@gmail.com>
> À: "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com>
> Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@ceph.com>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 17:58:12
> Objet: Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?
> 
> Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> 2015-07-30 06:54: 
> >As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper 
> >builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the 
> >systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for 
> >centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to 
> >maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work. 
> > 
> >"Dropping" them would mean: 
> > 
> > - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and 
> >jewel) would not be tested on these distros. 
> > 
> > - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new 
> >releases. 
> > 
> > - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for 
> >future bugfix point releases. 
> > 
> > - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the 
> >burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on 
> >precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the 
> >packaging and/or build environment to make it work. 
> > 
> >So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros. 
> >Specifically, 
> > 
> > CentOS6 / RHEL6 
> > Ubuntu precise 12.04 
> > Debian wheezy 
> > 
> >Would anyone miss them? 
> > 
> >In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit 
> >entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing 
> >upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The 
> >sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry 
> >about packaging and testing them properly.) 
> > 
> >Thanks! 
> >sage 
> 
> As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian 
> Jessie (see also [1]), I am still running Debian Wheezy and as that is 
> supposed to be supported for another ~4 years by Debian, it would be 
> very nice if there were at least stability and security fixes backported 
> for the upstream ceph package repositories for that platform. 
> 
> Additionally, I'll note that I'm personally likely to continue to use 
> sysvinit so long as I still can, even when I am able to make the switch 
> to Jessie. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Brian 
> 
> [1] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg19959.html> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> ceph-users mailing list 
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com 
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com 
> --
> 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: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Brian Kroth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3506 bytes --]

That's good to hear.  Thanks for the heads up.  We're going to be 
getting another pile of hardware in the next couple of weeks and I'd 
prefer to not have to start with Wheezy just to have to move to Jessie a 
little bit later on.  As someone said earlier, OS rollouts take some care 
to do in large environments.  In the meantime I'll just keep refreshing 
http://ceph.com/debian/dists/ every couple of days :)

Cheers,
Brian

Alexandre DERUMIER <aderumier@odiso.com> 2015-07-31 09:21:
>>>As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian
>>>Jessie (see also [1]),
>
>Gitbuilder is already done for jessie
>
>http://gitbuilder.ceph.com/ceph-deb-jessie-x86_64-basic/
>
>@Sage : Don't known if something is blocking to release package officially ?
>
>
>
>----- Mail original -----
>De: "Brian Kroth" <bpkroth@gmail.com>
>À: "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com>
>Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@ceph.com>
>Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Juillet 2015 17:58:12
>Objet: Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?
>
>Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> 2015-07-30 06:54:
>>As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper
>>builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the
>>systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for
>>centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to
>>maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work.
>>
>>"Dropping" them would mean:
>>
>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and
>>jewel) would not be tested on these distros.
>>
>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com for new
>>releases.
>>
>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for
>>future bugfix point releases.
>>
>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the
>>burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on
>>precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the
>>packaging and/or build environment to make it work.
>>
>>So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros.
>>Specifically,
>>
>> CentOS6 / RHEL6
>> Ubuntu precise 12.04
>> Debian wheezy
>>
>>Would anyone miss them?
>>
>>In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit
>>entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing
>>upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The
>>sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry
>>about packaging and testing them properly.)
>>
>>Thanks!
>>sage
>
>As I still haven't heard or seen about any upstream distros for Debian
>Jessie (see also [1]), I am still running Debian Wheezy and as that is
>supposed to be supported for another ~4 years by Debian, it would be
>very nice if there were at least stability and security fixes backported
>for the upstream ceph package repositories for that platform.
>
>Additionally, I'll note that I'm personally likely to continue to use
>sysvinit so long as I still can, even when I am able to make the switch
>to Jessie.
>
>Thanks,
>Brian
>
>[1] <http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg19959.html>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ceph-users mailing list
>ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [ceph-users] dropping old distros: el6, precise 12.04, debian wheezy?

[Adam C. Emerson]

On 31/07/2015, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> Well, Centos 6 will be supported to 2020, and centos 7 was released a
> year ago so I'd imagine a lot of people haven't migrated yet and
> migration process is nontrivial if you already did some modificiations
> to c6 (read: fix broken as fuck init scripts for few apps)

If I understand, nobody is proposing to stop supporting CentOS 6 in
Hammer. It makes perfect sense for the LTS release of Ceph to continue
supporting the LTS releases of distributions that were current when it
was released. But Jewel should only have to support RHEL 7 for its life
cycle.

This way newer releases of Ceph can take advantage of newer language,
library, and kernel features and people who need the stability and
assurance of an older, long-term support distribution can continue to
have a stable, long-term support release of Ceph to go with it.