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