[Starlingx-discuss] [build-report] STX_build_layer_flock_master_master - Build # 132 - Still Failing!

[Scott Little]

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.

The build layering solution might be to throw it in it's own layer.

Until we are 100% committed to build layering, we need to converge on 
ONE version of ceph.

Scott


On 2020-06-03 10:52 a.m., Saul Wold wrote:
>
>
> On 6/3/20 1:47 AM, Liu, ZhipengS wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> For question #1,
>>
>> When we built openstack ussuri image which is python3 only.
>>
>> It needs python3-rbd and related dependency, so we add 
>> librados2-13.2.10 and related packages.
>>
>> For local built librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm, it is for 
>> python2.
>>
>> Shouldn’t  we let the build choose local build first?
>>
> 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.
>
>> Another option is moving these packages to container layer, add 
>> rpms_centos.lst in config/centos/flock/?
>>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Sau!
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Zhipeng
>>
>> *From:*Scott Little <scott.little at windriver.com>
>> *Sent:* 2020年6月3日15:57
>> *To:* starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>> *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [build-report] 
>> STX_build_layer_flock_master_master - Build # 132 - Still Failing!
>>
>> This was an interesting one.
>>
>> We have been building librados2-13.2.2-0.el7.tis.25.x86_64.rpm as 
>> part of the distro layer for some time.
>>
>> A recent update added librados2-13.2.10-0.el7.x86_64.rpm to the lst 
>> of the flock layer.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> A flock layer build-iso should have caught this.  I suspect build-iso 
>> was only performed on a monolithic build.
>>
>> Open questions.
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On 2020-06-02 10:30 p.m., build.starlingx at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:build.starlingx at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Project: STX_build_layer_flock_master_master
>>
>>     Build #: 132
>>
>>     Status: Still Failing
>>
>>     Timestamp: 20200603T020359Z
>>
>>     Check logs at:
>>
>> http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/flock/20200603T020359Z/logs
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Parameters
>>
>>     FULL_BUILD: false
>>
>>     FORCE_BUILD: false
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     Starlingx-discuss mailing list
>>
>>     Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io 
>> <mailto:Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>>
>> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
>> Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss