From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: increasingly large packages and longer build times
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:07:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CALqRxCyB4joTgKu1ciuXXXLF_Mqbk0OqEHkFNFUYm=LnWR26uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC-Np1yg062K==JMEQhRTVKRe7orS3YoXz9hcgfKH+xfiZBiww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALqRxCzmEN0UUD5iGcDw+iSp8+=cBmJpVa2Z=27fyVD_RWzRmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ4mKGZ5eAvOTTDwAzoAjv2Ed0C3mb1E7PxQvphY85rXZy5Oow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJE9aON9ELevTue_DXdcYnqBVO2LbTe8mthbytegbtyfLm+K7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <71c7b782-6d7e-1e06-e889-bbbf9004ebfe@suse.cz> <CAJE9aONTxPVcyOfoXDw7ZBQrgpWEXpE29b++cct1X816LVY3+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC-Np1w22udazP7Pg0PFqgRj+tEOFiRwXncQNVNigPaZpBUejQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJE9aOMXRGU0L3z_LaMYgX3voDNLuvy5++W3p3Pon+Rbq7Gyug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC-Np1zLsgWG=PznwRtFh8tSkh8Z-xc7T+NeBYQrLQBizjiLhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1708241327080.20435@piezo.novalocal> <CAF-wwdH7ummeA96zovQn3hu2pyaAG=gvgyqDVDSfz=e0Ua7OHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALqRxCzhwwzTiypeHNQWxo3qMrcdBDiK7TSPyrsTzYTYEQMc=w@mail.gmail.com> <CALe9h7ff+J4AL4NykNcsNh0R-ET8hQ48L57LqM0xPf3PA3GyYg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Return-path: <ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-vk0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52]:34309 "EHLO
        mail-vk0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750761AbdH3WHQ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:07:16 -0400
Received: by mail-vk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id s199so21149187vke.1
        for <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALe9h7ff+J4AL4NykNcsNh0R-ET8hQ48L57LqM0xPf3PA3GyYg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org>
To: John Spray <jspray@redhat.com>
Cc: Brad Hubbard <bhubbard@redhat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>, Alfredo Deza <adeza@redhat.com>, kefu chai <tchaikov@gmail.com>, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz>, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@redhat.com>, ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John Spray <jspray@redhat.com> wrote:
> The thing is, our boost could easily end up being the "old" one, if
> the distro is shipping security updates to theirs.  Our
> higher-numbered boost packages would potentially block the distro's
> updates to their lower-numbered boost packages.  If we ship our own
> separate boost, then maybe Ceph is stuck with an un-patched boost, but
> other applications on the system are not.

That scenario is theoretically possible, and it's good that you bring
it up for consideration. I'm trying to understand the likelihood of
the effort/disruption there. Do you have specific applications in mind
that would benefit in the way you describe? Ones that require boost
and are often co-installed on Ceph nodes?

- Ken