cephadm: preserve cephadm user during RPM upgrade

[sshambar]

The cephadm postun macro in the rpm spec file doesn't test for upgrade,
and removes the cephadm user. The patch changes the macro to only remove
the cephadm user on uninstall.

Fixes: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55664
Signed-off-by: Scott Shambarger devel@shambarger.net

Contribution Guidelines

• To sign and title your commits, please refer to Submitting Patches to Ceph.

• If you are submitting a fix for a stable branch (e.g. "pacific"), please refer to Submitting Patches to Ceph - Backports for the proper workflow.

Checklist

• Tracker (select at least one)
  • References tracker ticket
  • Very recent bug; references commit where it was introduced
  • New feature (ticket optional)
  • Doc update (no ticket needed)
  • Code cleanup (no ticket needed)
• Component impact
  • Affects Dashboard, opened tracker ticket
  • Affects Orchestrator, opened tracker ticket
  • No impact that needs to be tracked
• Documentation (select at least one)
  • Updates relevant documentation
  • No doc update is appropriate
• Tests (select at least one)
  • Includes unit test(s)
  • Includes integration test(s)
  • Includes bug reproducer
  • No tests

Show available Jenkins commands

• jenkins retest this please
• jenkins test classic perf
• jenkins test crimson perf
• jenkins test signed
• jenkins test make check
• jenkins test make check arm64
• jenkins test submodules
• jenkins test dashboard
• jenkins test dashboard cephadm
• jenkins test api
• jenkins test docs
• jenkins render docs
• jenkins test ceph-volume all
• jenkins test ceph-volume tox
• jenkins test windows

[adk3798]

Build succeeded. Also, from test run with build (since there were other PRs added in build):

https://pulpito.ceph.com/adking-2022-05-18_00:20:23-orch:cephadm-wip-adk-testing-2022-05-17-1753-distro-basic-smithi/

1 failure in new staggered upgrade test, caused by staggered upgrade PR in this run. Unrelated to changes in this PR.

[mgfritch]

lgtm!

[tchaikov]

@sshambar hey Scott, shall we backport this change to LTS branches like pacific and quincy? if yes, could you please update https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55664 's "Backport" field accordingly?

[sshambar]

@sshambar hey Scott, shall we backport this change to LTS branches like pacific and quincy? if yes, could you please update https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55664 's "Backport" field accordingly?

I think backporting would be useful as it will ease any upgrades between releases... however, my account on the tracker doesn't give me access to the "update" link so I'm unable to modify the backport field.

[adk3798]

@sshambar I updated the tracker appropriately. I'm not sure if the master -> main branch stuff has been sorted yet but once I know we're good to merge things this seems like it's good to go and we can do the backports.

[tchaikov]

jenkins test api