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

build/ops: rpm: gperftools-devel >= 2.4 #14870

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 2, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@smithfarm
Contributor

smithfarm commented Apr 28, 2017

There be dragons in older versions . . .

References: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13522
Signed-off-by: Nathan Cutler ncutler@suse.com

build/ops: rpm: gperftools-devel >= 2.4
There be dragons in older versions . . .

References: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13522
Signed-off-by: Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.com>

@smithfarm smithfarm added the build/ops label Apr 28, 2017

@smithfarm smithfarm requested review from liewegas and ktdreyer Apr 28, 2017

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Apr 28, 2017

@ktdreyer OK if we require gperftools 2.4+ (or maybe even 2.5+) in luminous?

@liewegas

This comment has been minimized.

Member

liewegas commented Apr 28, 2017

I think the question is just whether this covers our supported target distros. I think it doesn't cover trusty, which is still on the list (although we can probably drop that one post-luminous!).

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Apr 28, 2017

I think it doesn't cover trusty, which is still on the list

yeah, that's why this is RPM-only

@liewegas

This comment has been minimized.

Member

liewegas commented Apr 28, 2017

Scratch that, this is the rpm dependency. So this is basically cutting out centos <= 7.2 right? Which is fine with me, but you might check with @nwl as IIRC there was some question about supporting earlier point releases; if we drop it here it might mean reverting this downstream for RHCS.

@liewegas

This comment has been minimized.

Member

liewegas commented Apr 28, 2017

Eh, working around this downstream is probably the right thing anyway. lgtm. @ktdreyer ?

@ktdreyer

Yep, this is fine with me

@yuriw yuriw merged commit f7cf9d1 into ceph:master May 2, 2017

3 checks passed

Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodifed Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
default Build finished.
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment