[go: nahoru, domu]

Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix various issues with fedora (f21+) builds #4981

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 24, 2015
Merged

Conversation

b-ranto
Copy link
Contributor
@b-ranto b-ranto commented Jun 17, 2015

This patchset contains various fixes for issues that uncover when you try to build ceph with upstream .spec file on f21+.

The patchset fixes missing build requires, rbd-replay-prep being in filelist on f21+, failed junit detection and man pages not being built by default anymore.

@osynge
Copy link
osynge commented Jun 17, 2015

I have just started a build using OBS at
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:osynge:ceph:wip:wip_obs_fedora/master+p4981+4974+4920+4918+4898

Which includes git hashes

6da8efea3e2acd0fb809070ad43f3200f76121fc
5d3826eaec29cdce5804852c3c137c7badc5c61b

@b-ranto b-ranto force-pushed the wip-fedora-build-fixes branch 2 times, most recently from 19eab86 to da6ba44 Compare June 17, 2015 15:04
@osynge
Copy link
osynge commented Jun 18, 2015

211bfe8 can no longer be merged.

@b-ranto
Copy link
Contributor Author
b-ranto commented Jun 18, 2015

Yeah, it was "superseded" by a patch in PR 4990 that was sent out later and imo the fix is broken as it does not prefer junit4.jar to the junit.jar -- what if the system default version is junit3 or junit5 (some time in the future) but the system also provides junit4? In that case, the variable that is being set might point to the system default version instead of the correct required version. -- that is the reason why I did not use the find's -o option...

@osynge
Copy link
osynge commented Jun 18, 2015

I agree your fix is better for exactly these reasons, but since the guy does not (I think0 work for a distro it was good he got his patch in.

Maybe you could remake this patch to apply your solution on top of his?

Git is not a SUSE-only dependency, the build process itself requires it.

Signed-off-by: Boris Ranto <branto@redhat.com>
If a system contains older (3) or later (5) release of junit.jar that is
default in the system, the auto-detection might find it before it finds
junit4.jar. This commit fixes that issue by always preferring the
junit4.jar library.

Signed-off-by: Boris Ranto <branto@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Boris Ranto <branto@redhat.com>
@ktdreyer
Copy link
Member

thanks @BRANTO1

Reviewed-by: Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com>

@ktdreyer
Copy link
Member

Longer term, we should figure out what's breaking with rbd-replay-prep so that it can ship on RHEL 7 and modern Fedoras. http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11587 has some clues.

@ktdreyer ktdreyer merged commit 85517d6 into master Jun 24, 2015
ktdreyer added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2015
Fix various issues with fedora (f21+) builds

Reviewed-by: Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@redhat.com>
@ktdreyer ktdreyer deleted the wip-fedora-build-fixes branch June 24, 2015 20:08
@ktdreyer
Copy link
Member

After digging a bit further into that rbd-replay-prep change (85517d6) with @ilc in #ceph-devel this afternoon, I think we need to revert that change. babeltrace should be in the buildroot for all Fedora versions, so make ought to be building rbd-replay-prep on all Fedoras.

We can also drop the references to Fedora < 20 at the same time, since F19 is EOL.

See https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/wip-fedora-babeltrace . Once Gitbuilder has tested this I'd like to get a PR for the two commits there.

@dillaman
Copy link

@ktdreyer Should we submit an EPEL request to get RHEL 7 package support for babeltrace?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/babeltrace/

@ktdreyer
Copy link
Member

Yep! done here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1235466

@ktdreyer
Copy link
Member

See https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/wip-fedora-babeltrace . Once Gitbuilder has tested this I'd like to get a PR for the two commits there.

This PR is #5082

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants