Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Kevin Kofler
Florian Weimer wrote:
> You dropped too much context here.  Drivers which are rottenware (Panu's
> term) are exactly in this category.  We can only hope that upstreams
> remove them, based on feedback from the larger community.

The question is, how do you know whether the unmaintained driver last tested 
years ago still works (making potentially hundreds of silent users happy, 
and removing it will force them to spend money on replacing their hardware) 
or is actually completely broken? You have just no way to know.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:31 PM Kevin Kofler  wrote:

> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > The real question which every packager should ask himself is: Do I have
> > the capacity (time, knowledge, hardware, etc.) to solve problems on
> > non-supported architecture by upstream?
> > And if the answer is no - it is probably better to drop the arch instead
> > of shipping smth that not even the maintainer knows whether it is usable
> > at all (like I used to ship eclipse on 32 bit arm although I'm quite sure
> > it was not usable at all).
>
> By that definition, all my packages would really be ExclusiveArch: x86_64.
> Is that really what you want?
>

There is big difference between what I want and what I can do :) . Setting
clear expectations is crucial for any system to work properly and
issues(e.g. understaffed) being noticed before it's late.


>
> Kevin Kofler
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>


-- 
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Kevin Kofler:

> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I think that's only a problem if reported bugs don't get fixed.  If such
>> bugs are fixed, shipping everything that builds aligns well with
>> building a community-tested distribution.
>> 
>> Exceptions could be software that leads to purchases of some kind, based
>> on an incorrect assumption of Fedora support due to the existence of the
>> non-working package.
>
> Well, that would exclude a lot of hardware drivers, and make Fedora pretty 
> useless. (You cannot realistically test Fedora on all hardware on which 
> users want to use it.)

You dropped too much context here.  Drivers which are rottenware (Panu's
term) are exactly in this category.  We can only hope that upstreams
remove them, based on feedback from the larger community.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Kevin Kofler
Florian Weimer wrote:
> I think that's only a problem if reported bugs don't get fixed.  If such
> bugs are fixed, shipping everything that builds aligns well with
> building a community-tested distribution.
> 
> Exceptions could be software that leads to purchases of some kind, based
> on an incorrect assumption of Fedora support due to the existence of the
> non-working package.

Well, that would exclude a lot of hardware drivers, and make Fedora pretty 
useless. (You cannot realistically test Fedora on all hardware on which 
users want to use it.)

In the end, if I need, e.g., a printer, I just have to buy some model, check 
the model lists upstream (in my example: Gutenprint, HPLIP, etc.) claims to 
support (for printers, openprinting.org can also be of help) and then hope 
it works. Short hardware compatibility lists with regularly tested models 
are not always helpful because the listed models are often no longer 
available and/or not in the desired price and/or feature range.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Kevin Kofler
Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> The real question which every packager should ask himself is: Do I have
> the capacity (time, knowledge, hardware, etc.) to solve problems on
> non-supported architecture by upstream?
> And if the answer is no - it is probably better to drop the arch instead
> of shipping smth that not even the maintainer knows whether it is usable
> at all (like I used to ship eclipse on 32 bit arm although I'm quite sure
> it was not usable at all).

By that definition, all my packages would really be ExclusiveArch: x86_64. 
Is that really what you want?

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Panu Matilainen

On 8/14/19 12:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Panu Matilainen:


Attitudes like that is why there's rottenware in the distro that last
actually worked sometime around 2011, dutifully rebuilt on each
mass-rebuild and even spec cleanups taking place but the software
itself crashes on startup (or is otherwise entirely dysfunctional)
ever since.


I think that's only a problem if reported bugs don't get fixed.  If such
bugs are fixed, shipping everything that builds aligns well with
building a community-tested distribution.


Part of the problem is the auto-close of bugs. When bugs get auto-closed 
for the umpteenth time without anybody attending them, people tend to 
give up, and the component ends up looking like there are no bugs at 
all. Which actually is quite a good indicator of a broken, dead package...


- Panu -
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Panu Matilainen:

> Attitudes like that is why there's rottenware in the distro that last
> actually worked sometime around 2011, dutifully rebuilt on each
> mass-rebuild and even spec cleanups taking place but the software
> itself crashes on startup (or is otherwise entirely dysfunctional)
> ever since.

I think that's only a problem if reported bugs don't get fixed.  If such
bugs are fixed, shipping everything that builds aligns well with
building a community-tested distribution.

Exceptions could be software that leads to purchases of some kind, based
on an incorrect assumption of Fedora support due to the existence of the
non-working package.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Panu Matilainen

On 8/14/19 10:59 AM, Andreas Tunek wrote:



On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, 23:33 Kevin Kofler, > wrote:


Kaleb Keithley wrote:
 > Building it on 32-bit in the CI is only to ensure correctness of
sprintf
 > format strings. It's a compile-only test.

And that is sufficient. As long as it compiles, you can package it.
Whether
upstream "supports" it or not is irrelevant.

         Kevin Kofler



If it compiles, ship it!



That's not fun at all.

Attitudes like that is why there's rottenware in the distro that last 
actually worked sometime around 2011, dutifully rebuilt on each 
mass-rebuild and even spec cleanups taking place but the software itself 
crashes on startup (or is otherwise entirely dysfunctional) ever since.


- Panu -
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 14. 08. 19 8:55, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> > It depends on package maintainer. If upstream dropped 32-bit support,
> I'd stop
> > building it for that arch in Fedora.
> >
> > Why would package maintainer have to bear the burden of potential
> breakage if
> > upstream doesn't test it?
>
> If neither of my upstreams officially supports s390x, should I just drop
> it
> everywhere?
>

The real question which every packager should ask himself is: Do I have the
capacity (time, knowledge, hardware, etc.) to solve problems on
non-supported architecture by upstream?
And if the answer is no - it is probably better to drop the arch instead of
shipping smth that not even the maintainer knows whether it is usable at
all (like I used to ship eclipse on 32 bit arm although I'm quite sure it
was not usable at all).


>
> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: +420777974800
> IRC: mhroncok
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>


-- 
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse Team
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Miro Hrončok

On 14. 08. 19 8:55, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
It depends on package maintainer. If upstream dropped 32-bit support, I'd stop 
building it for that arch in Fedora.


Why would package maintainer have to bear the burden of potential breakage if 
upstream doesn't test it?


If neither of my upstreams officially supports s390x, should I just drop it 
everywhere?


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Andreas Tunek
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, 23:33 Kevin Kofler,  wrote:

> Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > Building it on 32-bit in the CI is only to ensure correctness of sprintf
> > format strings. It's a compile-only test.
>
> And that is sufficient. As long as it compiles, you can package it.
> Whether
> upstream "supports" it or not is irrelevant.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>


If it compiles, ship it!

___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-14 Thread Frantisek Zatloukal
>
>
> And that is sufficient. As long as it compiles, you can package it.
> Whether
> upstream "supports" it or not is irrelevant.


It depends on package maintainer. If upstream dropped 32-bit support, I'd
stop building it for that arch in Fedora.

Why would package maintainer have to bear the burden of potential breakage
if upstream doesn't test it?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-13 Thread Kevin Kofler
Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> Building it on 32-bit in the CI is only to ensure correctness of sprintf
> format strings. It's a compile-only test.

And that is sufficient. As long as it compiles, you can package it. Whether 
upstream "supports" it or not is irrelevant.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-13 Thread Kaleb Keithley
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:17 PM Kevin Kofler  wrote:

> >
> > Please feel free though to add your thoughts to the issue.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702
>
> The upstream issue actually says they want to keep building 32-bit in
> their
> CI, so it should compile just fine, they just won't test it.
>

It's already the case that it's not tested. It hasn't been tested in all
the years that I've been packaging it.

The upstream issue is about finally making it official that 32-bit is not
supported.

Building it on 32-bit in the CI is only to ensure correctness of sprintf
format strings. It's a compile-only test.

--

Kaleb
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Kevin Kofler
Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> The proposal[1] as it stands is to drop all aspects of 32-bit support,
> i.e. client, server, gfapi, etc., going forward from glusterfs-8. This
> should be considered advanced notice that consumers that have dependencies
> need to plan accordingly.
> 
> Please feel free though to add your thoughts to the issue.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702

The upstream issue actually says they want to keep building 32-bit in their 
CI, so it should compile just fine, they just won't test it. So an 
ExcludeArch should not be necessary.

It is quite likely that many upstream projects are never tested on armv7hl 
by upstream. That doesn't mean we need to ExcludeArch: armv7hl all of them.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Miro Hrončok

On 05. 08. 19 19:08, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
Er, what about them?  AIUI, there isn't going to be a i686 Fedora  in F31 and 
beyond.


So we keep adding ExcludeArch to more and more packages? Transitively, this will 
be harder and harder. Shouldn't we instead only explicitly build and select what 
needs to be built on i686 for multilib?


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:56:19PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 08. 19 15:36, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
> > 
> > The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7
> > will land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not
> > be official until GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly,
> > after Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 32/rawhide.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702
> 
> What about the dependent packages?
> 
> $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-devel
> glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.i686
> glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.x86_64
> libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
> qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
> samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
> uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src
> 
> $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-api-devel
> gluster-block-0:0.4-4.fc31.src
> glusterfs-coreutils-0:0.3.1-2.fc31.src
> libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
> nfs-ganesha-0:2.8.2-3.fc31.src
> qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
> samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
> scsi-target-utils-0:1.0.70-9.fc31.src
> tcmu-runner-0:1.1.3-2.fc26.src
> uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src

This is no big deal from libvirt/qemu POV. We've already trivially
adapted to ceph being purged from 32-bit archs by adding conditionals.
The same is trivial for glusterfs too.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com  -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Kaleb Keithley
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:57 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 05. 08. 19 15:36, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
> >
> > The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7
> will land
> > in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be
> official until
> > GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after Fedora 31 GA
> in Fedora
> > 32/rawhide.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702
>
> What about the dependent packages?
>
> $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-devel
> glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.i686
> glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.x86_64
> libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
> qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
> samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
> uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src
>

Er, what about them?  AIUI, there isn't going to be a i686 Fedora  in F31
and beyond. That just leaves armv7hl. Is anyone really running libvirt,
qemu, or storage on such platforms? If they are,  the number must be
vanishingly small. (My own experience with virt on ARM makes me believe
that the that the number must be truly microscopic.) Of those that are, is
there a reason they can't keep running glusterfs-7 on F30 or F31
indefinitely if they really need 32-bit gluster?

$ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-api-devel
> gluster-block-0:0.4-4.fc31.src
> glusterfs-coreutils-0:0.3.1-2.fc31.src
> libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
> nfs-ganesha-0:2.8.2-3.fc31.src
> qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
> samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
> scsi-target-utils-0:1.0.70-9.fc31.src
> tcmu-runner-0:1.1.3-2.fc26.src
> uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src


tcmu-runner and scsi-target-utils is only for gluster-block, which, by
extension should also drop 32-bit at the same time. Likewise,
glusterfs-coreutils should also drop 32-bit support.

That only leaves ganesha and samba, which can drop their FSAL_GLUSTER and
VFS_GLUSTER plug-ins on 32-bit. Something they have already had to do for
Ceph-14 in Fedora 30.

--

Kaleb
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Kaleb Keithley
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Peter Robinson  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Kaleb Keithley  wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
> >
> > The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7
> will land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be
> official until GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after
> Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 32/rawhide.
>
> Will clients still work, is this server only?
>

Existing 32-bit GlusterFS clients (glusterfs-7 and earlier) should continue
to work just fine — AFAIK — connecting to 64-bit glusterfs servers.

The proposal[1] as it stands is to drop all aspects of 32-bit support, i.e.
client, server, gfapi, etc., going forward from glusterfs-8. This should be
considered advanced notice that consumers that have dependencies need to
plan accordingly.

Please feel free though to add your thoughts to the issue.

[1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Peter Robinson
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Kaleb Keithley  wrote:
>
>
> There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
>
> The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7 will 
> land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be 
> official until GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after 
> Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 32/rawhide.

Will clients still work, is this server only?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Miro Hrončok

On 05. 08. 19 15:36, Kaleb Keithley wrote:

There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.

The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7 will land 
in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be official until 
GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 
32/rawhide.




[1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702


What about the dependent packages?

$ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-devel
glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.i686
glusterfs-api-devel-0:6.4-3.fc31.x86_64
libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src

$ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires glusterfs-api-devel
gluster-block-0:0.4-4.fc31.src
glusterfs-coreutils-0:0.3.1-2.fc31.src
libvirt-0:5.5.0-2.fc31.src
nfs-ganesha-0:2.8.2-3.fc31.src
qemu-2:4.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src
samba-2:4.10.6-0.fc31.2.src
scsi-target-utils-0:1.0.70-9.fc31.src
tcmu-runner-0:1.1.3-2.fc26.src
uwsgi-0:2.0.18-2.fc31.src

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

2019-08-05 Thread Ben Cotton
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:51 AM Kaleb Keithley  wrote:
>
>
> There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
>
> The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7 will 
> land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be 
> official until GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after 
> Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 32/rawhide.
>
> [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/702
>

Kaleb, when this is determined upstream, can you please file this as a
Fedora 32 (or whatever version) change proposal? Note that the Fedora
31 Change proposal deadline has already passed and that F31 branches
from rawhide on 13 August.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org