Bigtop
  1. Bigtop
  2. BIGTOP-1194

redhat-lsb-core is sufficient in spec files

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Patch Available
    • Priority: Blocker Blocker
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: 0.7.0, 0.8.0
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: RPM
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:

      Centos 6.4 Minimal

      Description

      For init scripts that source /lib/lsb/init-functions
      Requiring redhat-lsb-core instead of redhat-lsb, which has much larger dependencies, simplifies the deployment.

        Activity

        Regis Nebor created issue -
        Andrew Purtell made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Affects Version/s 0.8.0 [ 12324841 ]
        Hide
        Peter Linnell added a comment -

        +1 for this. True and I am curious why the latter was not chosen as the default.

        Show
        Peter Linnell added a comment - +1 for this. True and I am curious why the latter was not chosen as the default.
        Hide
        Bruno Mahé added a comment -

        If I remember correctly this is not available in centos 5.
        So we can go ahaead if CentOS 5 is dropped (and my memory is correct), otherwise please use an if/else around

        Show
        Bruno Mahé added a comment - If I remember correctly this is not available in centos 5. So we can go ahaead if CentOS 5 is dropped (and my memory is correct), otherwise please use an if/else around
        Hide
        Steven Schlansker added a comment -

        +1, this is extremely inconvenient for me too (my ec2 nodes will now have support for printing and all the X11 libraries...) Sad times!

        Show
        Steven Schlansker added a comment - +1, this is extremely inconvenient for me too (my ec2 nodes will now have support for printing and all the X11 libraries...) Sad times!
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        CentOS 5 is definitely getting dropped for Bigtop 0.8.0. I think we can go ahead with this JIRA once that happens (I plan to update our build infra next week).

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - CentOS 5 is definitely getting dropped for Bigtop 0.8.0. I think we can go ahead with this JIRA once that happens (I plan to update our build infra next week).
        Hide
        Guo Ruijing added a comment -

        +1 redhat-lsb-core is a good solution.

        I am wondering if we can move all platform specific to bigtop-utils.

        It means:
        bigtop-utils depends on redhat-lsb-core and remove all component dependancy on redhat-lsb.

        Show
        Guo Ruijing added a comment - +1 redhat-lsb-core is a good solution. I am wondering if we can move all platform specific to bigtop-utils. It means: bigtop-utils depends on redhat-lsb-core and remove all component dependancy on redhat-lsb.
        Hide
        yuyun.chen added a comment -

        I have replaced redhat-lsb using redhat-lsb-core, and have test build and deploy function, it works fine, run the follow command to replace
        find . -name *.spec -exec echo {} \; -exec sed -i 's/redhat-lsb/redhat-lsb-core/g' {} \;

        Show
        yuyun.chen added a comment - I have replaced redhat-lsb using redhat-lsb-core, and have test build and deploy function, it works fine, run the follow command to replace find . -name *.spec -exec echo {} \; -exec sed -i 's/redhat-lsb/redhat-lsb-core/g' {} \;
        yuyun.chen made changes -
        Attachment BIGTOP-1194.patch [ 12651386 ]
        Hide
        yuyun.chen added a comment -

        finished test on redhat 6.4 and centos 6.4, it pass

        Show
        yuyun.chen added a comment - finished test on redhat 6.4 and centos 6.4, it pass
        Hide
        yuyun.chen added a comment -

        attache patch for bigtop-1194

        Show
        yuyun.chen added a comment - attache patch for bigtop-1194
        yuyun.chen made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] Patch Available [ 10002 ]
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        guys, I am about to commit this and also drop RHEL/CentOS5 from the face of the earth. I'll wait till next weekend for folks to object and then will go do it.

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - guys, I am about to commit this and also drop RHEL/CentOS5 from the face of the earth. I'll wait till next weekend for folks to object and then will go do it.
        Roman Shaposhnik made changes -
        Assignee Roman Shaposhnik [ rvs ]
        Roman Shaposhnik made changes -
        Priority Trivial [ 5 ] Blocker [ 1 ]
        Hide
        Peter Linnell added a comment -

        +1 on the patch and +1 to Drop RHEL5/CentOS5

        Show
        Peter Linnell added a comment - +1 on the patch and +1 to Drop RHEL5/CentOS5
        Hide
        jay vyas added a comment -

        hmmmm... Roman Shaposhnik If this means no more CentOS/RHEL rpms , then I'd vote against that

        If there is an issue - maybe I can lend a hand maintaining them.

        I definetly want to see Bigtop continue to support Fedora / CentOS / Rhel as best as possible.

        Show
        jay vyas added a comment - hmmmm... Roman Shaposhnik If this means no more CentOS/RHEL rpms , then I'd vote against that If there is an issue - maybe I can lend a hand maintaining them. I definetly want to see Bigtop continue to support Fedora / CentOS / Rhel as best as possible.
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        jay vyas it just means the lowest RHEL/CentOS we'd support would be 6, not 5. The support for RHEL/CentOS/Fedora definitely is not going away – we're just upgrading the minimum supported platform version.

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - jay vyas it just means the lowest RHEL/CentOS we'd support would be 6, not 5. The support for RHEL/CentOS/Fedora definitely is not going away – we're just upgrading the minimum supported platform version.
        Hide
        jay vyas added a comment -

        Oh okay ! makes sense.

        Show
        jay vyas added a comment - Oh okay ! makes sense.
        Hide
        Julien Eid added a comment -

        Hello Roman,

        This update will break packages on RHEL6 less than version 6.4. redhat-lsb-core only became a package in RHEL 6.4 after this bugzilla ticket was made, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835919

        Previous to 6.4, this package does not exist and redhat-lsb should be used. You can see on the CentOS 6.2 package list http://vault.centos.org/6.2/os/Source/SPackages/ that redhat-lsb-core does not exist and installs will break on that version. So the lowest RHEL you would be able to support would be RHEL6.4, breaking the packages for a lot of people who stay on earlier version of RHEL6.

        Show
        Julien Eid added a comment - Hello Roman, This update will break packages on RHEL6 less than version 6.4. redhat-lsb-core only became a package in RHEL 6.4 after this bugzilla ticket was made, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835919 Previous to 6.4, this package does not exist and redhat-lsb should be used. You can see on the CentOS 6.2 package list http://vault.centos.org/6.2/os/Source/SPackages/ that redhat-lsb-core does not exist and installs will break on that version. So the lowest RHEL you would be able to support would be RHEL6.4, breaking the packages for a lot of people who stay on earlier version of RHEL6.
        Hide
        Sean Mackrory added a comment -

        I'd be hesitant to have this change if it would mean RHEL < 6.4 stops getting supported too. I don't suppose there's the equivalent in RPM packages of the | operator in Debian, is there? A way to specify multiple packages that can satisfy the dependency? Preferably with a well-defined precedence between them. Perhaps we should specify the dependency as being specifically on the file '/lib/lsb/init-functions' instead of redhat-lsb as a whole, which I believe yum should still be able to resolve...

        Show
        Sean Mackrory added a comment - I'd be hesitant to have this change if it would mean RHEL < 6.4 stops getting supported too. I don't suppose there's the equivalent in RPM packages of the | operator in Debian, is there? A way to specify multiple packages that can satisfy the dependency? Preferably with a well-defined precedence between them. Perhaps we should specify the dependency as being specifically on the file '/lib/lsb/init-functions' instead of redhat-lsb as a whole, which I believe yum should still be able to resolve...
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        I suppose I agree with Sean Mackrory and Julien Eid. RHEL/CentOS 6.4 came out only in February 2013. I suggest we let this JIRA rest for a year or two

        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - I suppose I agree with Sean Mackrory and Julien Eid . RHEL/CentOS 6.4 came out only in February 2013. I suggest we let this JIRA rest for a year or two
        Hide
        Guo Ruijing added a comment -

        another proposal(possible after 0.8.0 release)

        1. create new RPM package bigtop-platform (move all platform dependents to bigtop-platform RPM)

        2. all component require bigtop-platform.

        3. in bigtop-platform:

        a) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb
        b) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb-core

        Show
        Guo Ruijing added a comment - another proposal(possible after 0.8.0 release) 1. create new RPM package bigtop-platform (move all platform dependents to bigtop-platform RPM) 2. all component require bigtop-platform. 3. in bigtop-platform: a) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb b) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb-core
        Hide
        Sean Mackrory added a comment -

        a) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb
        b) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb-core

        I'm not aware of any mechanism for expressing this conditional at install time. You have to have a literal list of dependencies generated at build-time. Which means that we'd have to publish one set of packages for RHEL 6.4+, and a separate set of packages for RHEL 6.3-.

        Show
        Sean Mackrory added a comment - a) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb b) if RHEL6 less than version 6.4, require redhat-lsb-core I'm not aware of any mechanism for expressing this conditional at install time. You have to have a literal list of dependencies generated at build-time. Which means that we'd have to publish one set of packages for RHEL 6.4+, and a separate set of packages for RHEL 6.3-.
        Hide
        Mark Grover added a comment -

        I suppose I agree with Sean Mackrory and Julien Eid. RHEL/CentOS 6.4 came out only in February 2013. I suggest we let this JIRA rest for a year or two

        I agree.

        Show
        Mark Grover added a comment - I suppose I agree with Sean Mackrory and Julien Eid. RHEL/CentOS 6.4 came out only in February 2013. I suggest we let this JIRA rest for a year or two I agree.
        Hide
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment -

        I think we're all in agreement that a rush wholesale change to disregard CentOS 6 below 6.4 is not a good idea.

        That said, what about requiring the actual files we depend on? E.g.:

        Requires: /lib/lsb/init-functions
        
        Show
        Roman Shaposhnik added a comment - I think we're all in agreement that a rush wholesale change to disregard CentOS 6 below 6.4 is not a good idea. That said, what about requiring the actual files we depend on? E.g.: Requires: /lib/lsb/init-functions

          People

          • Assignee:
            Roman Shaposhnik
            Reporter:
            Regis Nebor
          • Votes:
            4 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            13 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:

              Development