<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I see <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://review.opendev.org/#/c/733426/9">https://review.opendev.org/#/c/733426/9</a>
has been posted</p>
<p>With this update, layered builds should pass, and would look like
this ...</p>
<ul class="com-google-gwtexpui-safehtml-client-SafeHtmlCss-wikiList">
<li>Flock and iso builds will use 13.2.2.</li>
<li>All container builds uses 13.2.10.</li>
<ul>
<li>Do we want 13.2.10 in ALL containers?</li>
</ul>
<li>Any ceph dependent rpms from distro/flock builds that make it
into a container (if any), will have been compiled against
13.2.2, but will run against 13.2.10. I'm more comfortable with
a increment to the patch level than a decrement. I think we can
live with this until we can move to 13.2.10 universally.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Monolithic will continue to build, but will remain confused ...<br>
</p>
<p>All lst files, including container layer lsts, are downloaded
before any package is built.
Most if not all packages that depend on ceph will build against
13.2.10 as mock/yum does not understand the 'prefer local'.
build-iso will use 'prefer local' and ship with 13.2.2. The
implications of which is unclear. One hopes that the interface is
stable when the version diff is only at the patch level, but I
never like to see shipped version LOWER than the complied against
version.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020-06-03 6:08 p.m., Saul Wold
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:b6adc34f-7e0c-9b6f-4c8a-63a0db880030@linux.intel.com">
<br>
<br>
On 6/3/20 2:01 PM, Scott Little wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">No I don't think that would work. We
can't have two versions of the same package competing for
dominance within the mock build environments. i.e. on time pkg
X builds against 13.2.2, the next time against 13.2.10. The
outcome dependent on the vagaries of job scheduling, build
speeds, and any other number of factors. If you compile against
13.2.10, will you run ok vs 13.2.2. I wouldn't want to bet on
it.
<br>
<br>
The build layering solution might be to throw it in it's own
layer.
<br>
<br>
Until we are 100% committed to build layering, we need to
converge on ONE version of ceph.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Ok, so one option is to move to Ceph 13.2.10 or drop the existing
package list update that brings in the python3 and related Ceph
packages.
<br>
<br>
Do we need to at least revert that commit in-order to get the
build working again?
<br>
<br>
We might need to spend a few minutes to hash this out tomorrow
morning at the PTG.
<br>
<br>
Sau!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Scott
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2020-06-03 10:52 a.m., Saul Wold wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On 6/3/20 1:47 AM, Liu, ZhipengS wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Scott,
<br>
<br>
For question #1,
<br>
<br>
When we built openstack ussuri image which is python3 only.
<br>
<br>
It needs python3-rbd and related dependency, so we add
librados2-13.2.10 and related packages.
<br>
<br>
For local built librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm, it
is for python2.
<br>
<br>
Shouldn’t we let the build choose local build first?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Following up on this we need to be careful about which we
choose, as I said in the other email is this a one-off issue
or something that we see more of. So maybe an audit tool
would help.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Another option is moving these
packages to container layer, add rpms_centos.lst in
config/centos/flock/?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I understand this option better after chatting with Zhipeng, I
think this might be the best option adding the Updated Ceph /
RBD related packages to the container list which will be used
for the Usurri container builds but not by the platform OS.
<br>
<br>
This would mean that the containers would have Ceph 13.2.10
related packages and the platform OS would be 13.2.2. Would
that cause problems or stability issues?
<br>
<br>
Sau!
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks!
<br>
<br>
Zhipeng
<br>
<br>
*From:*Scott Little <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:scott.little@windriver.com"><scott.little@windriver.com></a>
<br>
*Sent:* 2020年6月3日15:57
<br>
*To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
*Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [build-report]
STX_build_layer_flock_master_master - Build # 132 - Still
Failing!
<br>
<br>
This was an interesting one.
<br>
<br>
We have been building
librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm as part of the
distro layer for some time.
<br>
<br>
A recent update added librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm to
the lst of the flock layer.
<br>
<br>
Now build-iso preferres locally built packages over
downloaded ones, even if the downloaded on is of higher
version. Now that policy is open for debate, but that is
what it does.
<br>
<br>
Monolithic build uses the lst files of all layers, but
having built librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm, it
selects librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm over
librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm when building the iso.
<br>
<br>
Flock layer build, downloads
librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm from the distro
layer build. It doesn't build it itself. The downloads
from the two sources are lumped into a common repo, so it
has no reason to prefer the lower versioned rpm. It selects
librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm.
<br>
<br>
The final piece of the puzzle is the transitive list of
requires for librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm. It has a
new dependency that pulls in
lttng-ust-2.10.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm, which in turn needs
userspace-rcu-0.10.0-3.el7.x86_64.rpm, which is not present.
It's wasn't included in the recent lst file changes that
added librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm.
<br>
<br>
A flock layer build-iso should have caught this. I suspect
build-iso was only performed on a monolithic build.
<br>
<br>
Open questions.
<br>
1) Is there a need to move to librados2-13.2.10 from
librados2-13.2.2. If yes, do we still need whatever
modifications were applied to librados2-13.2.2? Do they
need to be ported to librados2-13.2.10 , or can we drop
librados2 from the set of packages we have patches against?
<br>
<br>
2) For build-iso... should we prefer locally built packages
even though there is a higher package named in an lst? If
yes, then layered build needs apply the local first policy
accross layers. Alternatively, perhaps drop the local first
policy, but add an audit tool to detect when a locally built
package is being masked in this way.
<br>
<br>
Scott
<br>
<br>
On 2020-06-02 10:30 p.m., <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:build.starlingx@gmail.com">build.starlingx@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:build.starlingx@gmail.com"><mailto:build.starlingx@gmail.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Project: STX_build_layer_flock_master_master
<br>
<br>
Build #: 132
<br>
<br>
Status: Still Failing
<br>
<br>
Timestamp: 20200603T020359Z
<br>
<br>
Check logs at:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/flock/20200603T020359Z/logs">http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/flock/20200603T020359Z/logs</a>
<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Parameters
<br>
<br>
FULL_BUILD: false
<br>
<br>
FORCE_BUILD: false
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io"><mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io></a>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>