richacl packaging for cephfs

richacl packaging for cephfs

[John Spray]

Hi all,

I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
luminous).

The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).

I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
 * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
jobs
 * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
external storage SIG repos during testing

I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
anything that's not in the distro.

Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?

Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu

John

1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:57 +0100, John Spray wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
> richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
> luminous).
> 
> The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
> them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
> are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
> 
> I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
> it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
> Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
> jobs
>  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
> external storage SIG repos during testing
> 
> I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
> package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
> preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
> anything that's not in the distro.
> 
> Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
> 
> Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
> 
> John
> 
> 1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
> 2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
> 3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/
> --

(cc'ing andreas)

There are already richacl packages for Fedora, and the build
requirements are pretty reasonable. Is there any reason not to just ask
for those packages to be added to EPEL7? Should be pretty trivial to
get them built.

In fact, I went ahead and built some candidate packages for el7
directly from the rawhide srpm and it seems to have worked:

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15718383

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:57 +0100, John Spray wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
>> richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
>> luminous).
>>
>> The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
>> them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
>> are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
>>
>> I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
>> it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>>  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
>> Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
>> jobs
>>  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
>> external storage SIG repos during testing
>>
>> I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
>> package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
>> preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
>> anything that's not in the distro.
>>
>> Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
>>
>> Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
>>
>> John
>>
>> 1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
>> 2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
>> 3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/
>> --
>
> (cc'ing andreas)
>
> There are already richacl packages for Fedora, and the build
> requirements are pretty reasonable. Is there any reason not to just ask
> for those packages to be added to EPEL7? Should be pretty trivial to
> get them built.

I've requested an epel7 branch to be added to:

  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/richacl/

as per:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests#Additional_branches_for_existing_packagesadded

Not sure how long it will take to get that approved or if any
additional steps are needed; I guess we'll find out.

Thanks,
Andreas

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Andreas Grünbacher]

2016-09-20 16:57 GMT+02:00 John Spray <jspray@redhat.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
> richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
> luminous).
>
> The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
> them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
> are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
>
> I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
> it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
> Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
> jobs
>  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
> external storage SIG repos during testing
>
> I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
> package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
> preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
> anything that's not in the distro.
>
> Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?

As Jeff has suggested, does having the package in epel7 help you?

> Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu

I don't have any experience with Ubuntu packaging. We can add stuff to
the upstream repository if that helps.

Thanks,
Andreas

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[John Spray]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Andreas Grünbacher
<andreas.gruenbacher@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-09-20 16:57 GMT+02:00 John Spray <jspray@redhat.com>:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
>> richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
>> luminous).
>>
>> The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
>> them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
>> are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
>>
>> I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
>> it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>>  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
>> Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
>> jobs
>>  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
>> external storage SIG repos during testing
>>
>> I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
>> package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
>> preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
>> anything that's not in the distro.
>>
>> Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
>
> As Jeff has suggested, does having the package in epel7 help you?

I think this should work for the Ceph CI, I believe we already point
our test nodes to EPEL -- thank you.

John

>
>> Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
>
> I don't have any experience with Ubuntu packaging. We can add stuff to
> the upstream repository if that helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:57 +0100, John Spray wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
> > > richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
> > > luminous).
> > > 
> > > The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
> > > them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
> > > are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
> > > 
> > > I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
> > > it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
> > >  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
> > > Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
> > > jobs
> > >  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
> > > external storage SIG repos during testing
> > > 
> > > I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
> > > package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
> > > preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
> > > anything that's not in the distro.
> > > 
> > > Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
> > > 
> > > Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
> > > 
> > > John
> > > 
> > > 1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
> > > 2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
> > > 3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/
> > > --
> > 
> > (cc'ing andreas)
> > 
> > There are already richacl packages for Fedora, and the build
> > requirements are pretty reasonable. Is there any reason not to just ask
> > for those packages to be added to EPEL7? Should be pretty trivial to
> > get them built.
> 
> I've requested an epel7 branch to be added to:
> 
>   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/richacl/
> 
> as per:
> 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests#Additional_branches_for_existing_packagesadded
> 
> Not sure how long it will take to get that approved or if any
> additional steps are needed; I guess we'll find out.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andreas

Thanks Andreas! Last time I did it, it took around a day or so. You'll
also need to kick off a package build once it's done. That should be
all that's needed though.

Cheers,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Jan Fajerski]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:57:04PM +0100, John Spray wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
> richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
> luminous).
> 
> The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
> them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
> are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
> 
> I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
> it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
> Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
> jobs
>  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
> external storage SIG repos during testing
> 
> I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
> package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
> preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
> anything that's not in the distro.
> 
> Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
> 
> Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
Hi John,
I would take over the maintenance for the richacl userland tools in opensuse.
As for the other necessary parts I'll get in touch with some other teams at
SUSE to see what they think.

Best,
Jan

> 
> John
> 
> 1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
> 2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
> 3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/
> --
> 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
> 

-- 
Jan Fajerski
Engineer Enterprise Storage
SUSE Linux GmbH
jfajerski@suse.com

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 15:57 +0100, John Spray wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I was just taking an updated look at how we could proceed to get
>> > > richacl support[1,2,3] built and tested in cephfs (probably for
>> > > luminous).
>> > >
>> > > The packages exist currently for Fedora.  For testing, we will need
>> > > them for Ubuntu (probably just Xenial?), CentOS and RHEL (once there
>> > > are RHEL nodes in the sepia lab).
>> > >
>> > > I'm not very aware of ways forward for Ubuntu, but on the CentOS front
>> > > it seems like we have at least a couple of possibilities:
>> > >  * Build ourselves (using some branch of the fedora packaging?) on a
>> > > Ceph gitbuilder/jenkins job and install from that repo in teuthology
>> > > jobs
>> > >  * Get packages into CentOS Storage SIG and point teuthology at
>> > > external storage SIG repos during testing
>> > >
>> > > I believe we could ask nicely for some help from the storage SIG to
>> > > package richacl, but I'm not immediately sure if that's actually our
>> > > preferred approach for consuming packages in our CI vs. self-building
>> > > anything that's not in the distro.
>> > >
>> > > Does anybody have thoughts on the best way to go?
>> > >
>> > > Would also love to hear any thoughts about richacl  SUSE and Ubuntu
>> > >
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > 1. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341
>> > > 2. https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl
>> > > 3. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/richacl.git/
>> > > --
>> >
>> > (cc'ing andreas)
>> >
>> > There are already richacl packages for Fedora, and the build
>> > requirements are pretty reasonable. Is there any reason not to just ask
>> > for those packages to be added to EPEL7? Should be pretty trivial to
>> > get them built.
>>
>> I've requested an epel7 branch to be added to:
>>
>>   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/richacl/
>>
>> as per:
>>
>>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests#Additional_branches_for_existing_packagesadded
>>
>> Not sure how long it will take to get that approved or if any
>> additional steps are needed; I guess we'll find out.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andreas
>
> Thanks Andreas! Last time I did it, it took around a day or so. You'll
> also need to kick off a package build once it's done. That should be
> all that's needed though.

Things went fast this time. I've pushed the code to the epel7 branch
and kicked off a build; the packages are ready.

Andreas

Re: richacl packaging for cephfs

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher
<agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>>> Not sure how long it will take to get that approved or if any
>>> additional steps are needed; I guess we'll find out.
>>
>> Thanks Andreas! Last time I did it, it took around a day or so. You'll
>> also need to kick off a package build once it's done. That should be
>> all that's needed though.
>
> Things went fast this time. I've pushed the code to the epel7 branch
> and kicked off a build; the packages are ready.

The package needs one more karma point to make it into epel7 stable, please:

  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-dfe8979003

Thanks,
Andreas