On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:38:32AM +0530, Aravinda wrote: > On Tuesday 21 November 2017 08:29 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:06:59AM +0530, Aravinda wrote: > > > Hi Niels, > > > > > > I over looked the email about 3.12.3 release. > > > > > > Please suggest what we can do for this package dependency. This is runtime > > > dependency for one of the sub feature, if it is delaying other things then > > > we can remove this dependency from spec file.(All features work except > > > signing the webhook data). > > Hmm, normally new features do not get backported to prevent unforseen > > problems... > > > > We have been delayed quite a bit already, users are asking for the > > packages. If dropping the dependency from the .spec does not result in > > errors or tracebacks, that would be one approach. Can you please confirm > > that there are no problems when the package is missing? > Without the dependency, BZ 1501864 will not work. I will start working on > the alternate approach without using that library. We can remove from > dependency list now. > > @Sahina, Is it possible to wait for this feature till 3.12.4 release?
Many thanks Aravinda! I've spoken with Jiffin (one of the 3.12 release managers) about this as well now. I will revert the change in the packaging for the CentOS Storage SIG, both the code and the dependency. If a good alternative comes up, and the feature is critical to be in 3.12, we can do an update of the RPMs or wait for 3.12.4+. Niels > > If there is, we'll just bite the bullet and include python-jws-1.5 in > > the CentOS Storage SIG while keeping an eye on the Fedora package for > > updates. Additional maintainers for this and other packages are much > > wanted. > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday 20 November 2017 09:59 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > > > Hi Aravinda, > > > > > > > > A reply on the questions below is still outstanding. At the moment, I > > > > tend to think that using the most recent python-jwt package from Fedora > > > > is the most reasonable approach. It is a little more maintained there, > > > > and the CentOS Storage SIG can then piggy-back on the coming bugfixes > > > > and updates. > > > > > > > > Is there someone who wants to maintain/assist with watching over > > > > python-jwt for the CentOS Storage SIG? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Niels de Vos wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:39:46AM +0000, [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > SRC: > > > > > > https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/21/artifact/glusterfs-3.12.3.tar.gz > > > > > > HASH: > > > > > > https://build.gluster.org/job/release-new/21/artifact/glusterfs-3.12.3.sha256sum > > > > > > > > > > > > This release is made off jenkins-release-21 > > > > > This release adds an additional dependency for the glusterfs-events > > > > > sub-package (https://review.gluster.org/18519). There is no python-jwt > > > > > in RHEL/CentOS-7 so, we'll need to ship (and maintain!) this new > > > > > package > > > > > in the CentOS Storage SIG. > > > > > > > > > > Will python-jwt become part of RHEL at one point? Which version will > > > > > be > > > > > included in that case? I would prefer not to have to maintain > > > > > python-jwt > > > > > longer than necessary, and when RHEL-7 ships this package, it should > > > > > ideally update the version I need to add to the Storage SIG. > > > > > > > > > > [Obviously this delays packaging the update for CentOS.] > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Niels > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > packaging mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging > > > > > > -- > > > regards > > > Aravinda VK > > > > > > -- > regards > Aravinda VK > _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
