luminous: debian: correct ceph-common relationship with older radosgw package #24997
Conversation
|
(the docs test looks to have failed due to a network error...) |
|
@mcv21 Matthew, thanks for fixing the broken debian packaging. normally, if a bug exists in both LTS branches and master, we intend to
|
|
The adjacent PR #24996 fixes it in master (this is just a cherry-pick of that); it's not really office hours right now, so do you want to make the tracker ticket? Otherwise I'll do so tomorrow. |
|
@mcv21 by "cherry-pick" , i mean yeah, it'd be great if you could help on it. |
|
OK (I did cherry-pick, but missed the -x). As you suggest, I'll wait to re-do the cherry-pick until #24996 is merged. I've opened https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/36741 (and linked that from the other PR). |
|
[the docs build failure is some bit of Jenkins having a network issue...] |
Fixes: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/36741 9fd30b9 moved /etc/bash_completion.d/radosgw-admin from radosgw to ceph-common. This means that if you try and install a newer ceph-common over an older radosgw, there's a conflict, and the install fails: ``` Unpacking ceph-common (12.2.8-1xenial) over (10.2.9-0ubuntu0.16.04.1) ... dpkg: error processing archive ceph-common_12.2.8-1xenial_amd64.deb (--install): trying to overwrite '/etc/bash_completion.d/radosgw-admin', which is also in package radosgw 10.2.9-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 ``` Per Debian policy ( https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-in-other-packages ) the correct way to handle a package taking over a file is for a versioned Replaces and Breaks. The change went into 12.0.3, so this commit adds Replaces and Breaks against radosgw less than that version. It should be backported to Luminous to avoid issues with upgrades from older versions (Jewel and Kraken). Signed-off-by: Matthew Vernon <mv3@sanger.ac.uk> (cherry picked from commit dd24ddc)
mcv21
force-pushed
the
luminous-24996
branch
from
1fbe4d0
to
9caca49
Compare
mcv21
changed the title
|
@tchaikov The original PR has been merged (thanks :) ), so I have now re-done this PR with a |
|
jenkins, retest this please. |
|
PR text updated to reflect new tracker issue made for the luminous backport |
|
@mcv21 then you'd need to create a backport tracker ticket for mimic first. @smithfarm kindly created the one for luminous. |
|
@tchaikov @mvc21 mimic backport tracker issue is https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/37273 |
|
@mcv21 You are welcome to do the cherry-picking to mimic, but not required - the tracker is open, someone will pick it up. |
|
@smithfarm thanks, I figured I'd do it while I was thinking about it - #25115 |
smithfarm
changed the title
|
@yuriw I'm not sure what I should understand by your comment, but I can't see that trello card. |
|
@mcv21 i think it's a note for Yuri himself. but probably you can consider it as a message that your change is now included in his test batch, and the test branch is named wip-yuri-testing-2019-01-07-1727-luminous . if you are really curious, you can search the tests against this branch at pulpito, see http://pulpito.ceph.com/?branch=wip-yuri-testing-2019-01-07-1727-luminous |
|
@tchaikov thanks for satisfying my curiosity :) |
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/37274