10:02:37 <ndevos> #startmeeting Aprils Storage SIG meetup
10:02:37 <centbot> Meeting started Tue Apr  6 10:02:37 2021 UTC.  The chair is ndevos. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
10:02:37 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
10:02:46 <ndevos> #topic Roll Call
10:02:53 <fmount> o/
10:02:54 <ndevos> hi fmount!
10:03:18 <ndevos> not sure if there is anyone else joining today...
10:03:39 <fmount> gfidente shouldn't be here today
10:03:57 <ndevos> it'll be early for kkeithley too
10:04:05 <ndevos> #chair fmount
10:04:05 <centbot> Current chairs: fmount ndevos
10:04:18 <ndevos> #topic Agenda
10:04:29 <ndevos> the agenda is pretty small today
10:04:33 <ndevos> #link https://hackmd.io/Epc35JIESaeotoGzwu5R5w?both#2021-04-06
10:04:56 <ndevos> it currently has one topic
10:05:09 <ndevos> fmount: do you want to add something to the agenda?
10:05:17 <fmount> yeah, I have just a FYI topic, adding it to the agenda
10:05:27 <ndevos> ok, thanks!
10:05:34 <fmount> done
10:05:46 <ndevos> #topic CentOS / Fedora Account merging
10:05:46 <fmount> so ... guess we can start w/ all we have
10:06:24 <fmount> I saw that topic from Arrfab in the ML
10:06:28 <ndevos> so, you might have seen that Arrfab announced some changes in the login/account process
10:06:33 <fmount> yeah
10:06:40 <fmount> I'll ping gfidente as well on this
10:07:23 <ndevos> for me, my CentOS username 'ndevos' has been merged with 'devos' on the Fedora side, and you'll see 'devos' in the CBS when I build something
10:07:34 <fmount> do you know about specific actions we should take on this?
10:07:40 <fmount> yeah, I had the same name :D
10:07:48 <fmount> so I had to take no actions actually
10:07:55 <fmount> same name/email
10:08:25 <ndevos> if names were the same, I think there was nothing needed to do, you would just use your fedora passwd to login on the CentOS systems now (I guess)
10:08:39 <ndevos> lots of details in Arrfabs emails tough
10:08:51 <fmount> exactly
10:09:55 <ndevos> I'll try to refresh my CNS cert later today, and see if everything still works after that
10:10:18 <ndevos> and I'll need to verify that I can still log in on the CI infra for Ceph-CSI
10:10:36 <ndevos> s/CNS cert/CBS cert/
10:10:39 <fmount> +1, I'll do the same (and ping gfidente to double check)
10:10:40 <fmount> yeah
10:11:00 <ndevos> anything else about this topic?
10:11:02 <fmount> we can sync on this topic later if any issue  come up
10:11:21 <ndevos> yeah, we can do so in #centos-devel so others can help out too
10:11:28 <fmount> not from me, thanks for taking some time to mention this topic
10:11:47 <fmount> ndevos: ack thanks
10:11:52 <ndevos> #topic cephadm -pacific builds
10:12:00 <ndevos> fmount: you're up! :)
10:12:29 <fmount> ok this is mostly a FYI for everybody in the storage sig
10:12:45 <fmount> I updated the readme here: https://git.centos.org/rpms/cephadm/tree/c8-sig-storage-ceph-pacific
10:12:59 <fmount> w/ some automation (a Makefile) to build cephadm via its own spec file
10:13:06 <fmount> provided by kdreyer
10:13:34 <fmount> the long term idea is to have a periodic job providing cephadm builds
10:13:48 <fmount> but for now, the makefile was the first step
10:13:58 <fmount> the problem could be related to the fact
10:14:17 <fmount> that the ceph spec (that kkeithley knows better than me)
10:14:38 <fmount> provide the same package, with the same tag
10:15:14 <fmount> so we should coordinate and build a "convention" to make sure we don't create issues building the same package
10:15:20 <ndevos> that looks good!
10:15:46 <ndevos> just make sure to commit the generated .spec file when you do a non-scratch build
10:16:40 <fmount> yeah
10:17:47 <fmount> I guess kkeithley  solved this problem changing the cephadm spec line
10:17:52 <fmount> from Requires:    cephadm = %{_epoch_prefix}%{version}-%{release}
10:17:55 <fmount> to Requires:    cephadm >= %{_epoch_prefix}%{version}-%{release}
10:18:27 <fmount> at least for octopus, but I'll reach him to see if it works for pacific and it's enough
10:18:41 <fmount> and .. that was pretty much all I had
10:18:46 <fmount> for today
10:19:10 <fmount> ndevos: here the change I was talking about: https://git.centos.org/rpms/ceph/c/c289abb53de42c429b8fa809c49bb09648bcc273?branch=c8-sig-storage-ceph-octopus
10:19:26 <kkeithley> yes, I think that solves it.
10:19:37 <fmount> kkeithley: hey morning o/
10:19:42 <fmount> thanks for that change
10:19:52 <kkeithley> you're welcome
10:20:35 <fmount> kkeithley: and if you have the chance you can take a look at https://git.centos.org/rpms/cephadm
10:20:57 <kkeithley> sure
10:20:59 <ndevos> just looked at it, and shrugging it off... no idea how ceph is packaged :)
10:21:05 <fmount> and let us know (/me or gfidente or kdreyer) if you have suggestions/concerns
10:23:19 <ndevos> fmount, kkeithley: anything more related to Ceph Pacific or cephadm?
10:23:37 <fmount> ndevos: not from me
10:24:02 <kkeithley> I just cloned ssh://git@git.centos.org/rpms/cephadm.git. Apart from the two branches, it's empty!?
10:24:49 <fmount> kkeithley: yeah, the two branches for octopus and pacific
10:26:29 <fmount> ndevos: kkeithley I have to drop in a few minutes for another mtg, but feel free to ping me anytime on the cephadm topic
10:26:49 <ndevos> fmount: ok, thanks for joining!
10:27:06 <ndevos> I guess we're done with this topic anyway :)
10:27:14 <ndevos> #topic Open Floor
10:27:17 <fmount> yeah
10:27:27 <fmount> thanks ndevos and kkeithley
10:27:28 <ndevos> kkeithley: is there anything you would like to discuss in todays meeting?
10:27:32 <kkeithley> oops, never mind, there are files there. I just need my coffee
10:27:42 <fmount> :D
10:27:58 * ndevos hands kkeithley ☕
10:28:02 <kkeithley> ndevos: I had questions for you about best practice for building packages for c8 stream
10:28:18 <kkeithley> and also whether you wanted to build gluster8 packages for c8 stream
10:28:29 <ndevos> #topic Building for CentOS Stream
10:28:31 <kkeithley> I guess you never saw those in #centos-devel
10:29:00 <ndevos> hmm, indeed, I do not think I have seen those
10:29:13 <kkeithley> ;-)
10:29:37 <ndevos> I would like to build Gluster for c8s, but have not done so yet
10:29:48 <ndevos> can you repeat the question(s) here?
10:30:47 <ndevos> about best practises, *I* do not kave any, as I've not tried building for c8s yet
10:31:26 <kkeithley> for c8 stream, it seems like other sigs are just tagging dependency packages already built for c8-* with c8s-* tags.  I didn't look to see whether they actually _built_ the final target package(s) for c8s-*.
10:32:08 <kkeithley> Someone built a couple packages for c8s-storage-gluster* .  It wasn't me.
10:32:40 <kkeithley> a couple packages, but not gluster itself.
10:32:44 <kkeithley> yet
10:34:02 <ndevos> hmm, I can't remember doing so
10:34:09 <kkeithley> anyway, even without having done anything yet, do you have an opinion about a) building dependencies separately for c8s, and b) building the final target(s) (e.g. gluster, ganesha, ceph, etc.) for c8s-*?
10:34:13 <kkeithley> Or just tag them?
10:35:13 <kkeithley> you don't need to answer now, but think about it and let me know
10:36:08 <ndevos> I prefer to build, not tag, as the extension of the package should contain .el8s instead of .el8
10:36:27 <kkeithley> (and /me isn't sure what use it is (or was) to build gluster-core-utils for c8s without having gluster there yet. :-)
10:36:46 <ndevos> lol
10:37:08 <ndevos> maybe some automation triggered it?
10:37:14 <kkeithley> build or tag.
10:37:17 <kkeithley> perhaps
10:38:50 <ndevos> maybe I did configure the tags? added the package names to it? https://cbs.centos.org/koji/packages?tagID=2213
10:38:58 <kkeithley> right, well, I had asked you about the .el8s tag/suffix bit, but you apparently never saw it that.  I went with .el8s anyway when I asked for the new build targets and tags because I guessed you would want that.
10:39:29 <ndevos> good thinking, you know me well :D
10:39:37 <kkeithley> :-)
10:41:28 <kkeithley> so gluster doesn't have too many dependencies. think about what policy or best  practice you think we should have for the dependency packages and let me know
10:42:50 <ndevos> always rebuild, at least for the 1st time the tags need to be pupulated
10:43:04 <ndevos> *populated even
10:43:46 <kkeithley> and on a separate topic, someone (you?) had already created c8s-storage-gluster-9 build targets and tags. I hasd c8s-storage-gluster-8 build targets and tags created too when I had ganesha and ceph created
10:43:47 <ndevos> all packages in the repository should have correct .el8s extension
10:44:26 <kkeithley> ack
10:44:56 <ndevos> yes, I think I requested those, but then I was informed that publishing c8s packages was not stable yet, and I should not do releases for it yet
10:46:02 <ndevos> not sure what the current status of that is now, maybe sigs can publish c8s content - it hopefully changed since in the last moths
10:46:03 <kkeithley> Arrfab didn't say anything one way or the other when I requested them.
10:46:23 <kkeithley> s/them/the tags and targets
10:47:16 <ndevos> I think I got a ping about it on irc, not in the ticket where I requested them
10:49:08 <kkeithley> hughesjr also asked about doing c8s builds of centos-release-ceph-pacific package when I asked him to do it for c8. The implication seemed to be that c8s is ready.
10:49:50 <ndevos> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8-stream/ contains packages for some sigs, so I guess we can publish builds for c8s now too
10:49:56 <kkeithley> right
10:52:15 <kkeithley> Okay, I'm off to have breakfast. And *coffee*.   I don't usually look at my computer this early, but for some reason I did today. Glad I caught you.
10:52:20 <ndevos> ok, anything else we need to discuss?
10:53:08 <kkeithley> no
10:55:05 <ndevos> ok, thanks for attending!
10:55:10 <ndevos> #endmeeting