Yep. Already did :) On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:22 AM Alex Begg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wanted to point out that not only did Microsoft add Debian Bullseye > support for MSSQL today, to do so they did a major version > upgrade, from msodbcsql17 to msodbcsql18. So in addition to updating the > URL used to populate mssql-release.list, you also need to change to > msodbcsql18. I see msodbcsql17 is in multiple places in the Airflow code > base. > > Instructions for installing msodbcsql18 in Debian are here: > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/connect/odbc/linux-mac/installing-the-microsoft-odbc-driver-for-sql-server?view=sql-server-ver15#debian18 > > Alex > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:32 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yeah. That would definitely be a simpler approach for us. >> >> What we can also do is we can still make sure that you can actually >> "build" Buster images if you want and we could run the simple tests we >> already have for those images (those tests just check very basic stuff >> - like if expected packages are importable, if Airflow commands work, >> if you can run airflow as root user etc.. >> This would be very little to no complication of the CI and we could >> provide a recipe for the users how to build their own buster image - >> but without guarantees that everything works there. >> >> This way might provide the users with a "workable solution" while we >> could keep it simple for us and put a strong emphasis on "If you want >> to get full support - also upgrade to the latest stable OS". >> >> J. >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:53 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > My vote is to just move forward and only release Bullseye images for >> 2.3 onwards >> > >> > On 15 February 2022 08:43:50 GMT, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Good news from today - I got the response from Microsoft and it seems >> >> that MSSQL Bullseye support is going to be released today :) . So at >> >> least that problem is going to be solved. Still the question of >> >> whether we should build/release both Bullseye and Buster ? >> >> >> >> J. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:14 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> And Python default images are Bullseye now. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Buster end of life is August 2022 of course :) >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:12 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hello everyone, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am just about to complete preparation to make our images (and >> CI) work on Debian 11 images (Bullseye) vs Debian 10 (Buster). All looks >> (almost) good, but I would like to tap into the collective wisdom of the >> group here to decide on next steps (and maybe propose a policy we might be >> following in the future). The last change that allows to easily switch >> between the two is in reviee: >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/21546 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Context/where we are: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For quite a while we used Buster (Debian 10) as our base image. >> Buster is a stable release and it is being replaced with the next stable >> release Bullseye (Debian 11). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Release schedule is here: >> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The most important facts from those: >> >>>>> * Bullseye was introduced in August 2021 (6 months ago) and has no >> end-of-life yet >> >>>>> * Buster was introduced in July 2019 and its end of life is ~ >> August 2020 (approx. 6 months from now) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Python default images are (as of a few months), However they >> provide (as usual -buster and -bullseye) specific images. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Bullseye switch is really needed to support ARM (M1) images >> because of https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989604 >> (still unresolved on Buster). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It seems appropriate to switch to Bullseye now, however there is >> one problem with it - MSSQL drivers do not yet support Bullseye. I've >> reached out to the maintainers and await their answer when it might be >> available: >> https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/sql-docs/issues/7255#issuecomment-1037097131 >> . This is the last blocker that prevents full switch (failing PR for a full >> switch is https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/21378). All tests pass >> except MSSQL. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But I think we need to proceed, regardless of the timeline and >> switch to Bullseye. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Question: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We need to decide on what support we give our users in the images >> now, in the 2.3.0 release and in the future. We have no policies for that >> yet, so it might be a good time to decide now. Some of the users might >> "rely" on the Buster being used by the images as they might have some >> incompatible libraries (similarly to MSSQL). And I believe we need to >> support Buster till at least the end of life of it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This support might be twofold: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * we can publish in https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/airflow our >> binary images with Buster and/or Bullseye >> >>>>> * we can only publish one of those (and change from Buster to >> Bullseye for 2.3.0) but users will be able to build their own custom images >> using our Dockerfile for either of those. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Proposal: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think there are multiple reasons why we should support both >> Bullseye and Buster for the coming 6 months. We might build both images in >> CI and add a new "matrix" dimension and run most tests on Bullseye but some >> tests on Buster (specifically MSSQL until Bullseye is supported). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We can publish both types of images (with -buster, -bullseye >> suffixes same as Python) but the default image should be changed to >> Bullseye. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This will add some complexity (and build overhead) to our CI, but >> I think it's worth it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Then we could drop support and release the -buster images after it >> reaches end of life (but we will leave the users possibility of building >> their own buster images without guarantee that it will work). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think this might become our Policy also for the future (6 months >> before end-of-life we switch by default to the new stable and provide built >> images until end-of-life). >> >>>>> >> >>>>> WDYT? Does it look like a good proposal? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> J. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >
