On 8/25/20 11:21 AM, Theodor Mittermair wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to inquire about the status of the "dlm" package on Centos 8, which is required for using 'lvmlockd', replacement of 'clvmd'. I also asked on #centos irc channel and was directed to this mailing list There is a corresponding bug ticket [2] for this issue for quite some time, but since the end-of-life of CentOS 6 grows closer, some people would like to replace their CentOS 6 Cluster with a CentOS 8 one, which is why I ask on this mailing list now.
With the release of CentOS 8.0 it seems there were some issues with HighAvailability in general [1], but seem to have been resolved with CentOS 8.1.
However, as already mentioned there is a separate ticket [2], for the dlm package, which is unresolved as far ( 2020-08-25, Centos8.2 ) as i am aware. This prevents the use of clustered lvm and gfs2 out of the box, not an uncommon use when configuring a HA Cluster, also described by RedHat documentation [3]. In that tickets' conversation, it is mentioned that "that package is not in RHEL .. we have released what is in RHEL", however someone else seemed to have been in contact with RedHat and received information that "...this package is in fact part of a RedHat repository and then CentOS members should be able to take a look into it again...".
I'd also like to bring attention to the following explicitly:
- dlm-lib and dlm seem to be built from the same source rpm, dlm-lib is
available while dlm is not.
- apparently at some point in time dlm could be downloaded from koji
[4], but no more. For testing purposes we built dlm ourselves, locally as well as on copr [5], which seems to work thus far.
- fedora (however much this might mean) provides dlm.
- It might just be a configuration error on the build system, if I
understood correctly, there was/is larger amounts of restructuring. Also see chders' post from 2020-08-21 [2], which provides a possible explanation and solution.
For completeness, you should be able reproduce the absence of that package with: "yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=BaseOS,AppStream,HighAvailability,epel,cr,centosplus,PowerTools,Devel,extras,fasttrack list available | grep dlm" or simply attempt to "yum install dlm" on your CentOS 8.x Installation.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is this an error on my end, am I doing something wrong or missing a configuration? If no, is there actually any political/technical/administrative/law based reason for the unavailability of the "dlm" package? If no, according to recent posts on the ticket [2], there might be a rather simple solution (simplified, declaring the package to be included in a repository), is it valid and who could do this if applicable?
with best regards Theodor Mittermair https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=4801 [1] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16553 [2] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16939 [3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm... [4] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=145 [5] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/astra/dlm/
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi Folks,
Some clarity will follow on how we plan to deliver Addon repositories like ResilientStorage, HighAvailability and NFV.
Because of Red Hat’s desire to develop Addons along with the next minor release of RHEL our plan is to enable ResilientStorage and NFV in CentOS Stream for direct consumption.
If you think a package belongs in another repository, we encourage you to open a CentOS Stream bugzilla to discuss with RHEL maintainers:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20L...
We do not plan to expand the portfolio of Addons for CentOS Linux.
If there is a group of interested folks who wish to maintain extra content built against CentOS Linux, you may apply for a Special Interest Group: https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide
Cheers! --Brian
My apologies as I just subscribed to this list, I'll likely break the thread up. I did my best to contain relevance above.
First question, the statement ""...Resilient Storage is not base...". There has been a shift from 7 to 8 that I don't understand. RHEL 7 provides dlm in ResilientStorage, then CentOS 7 provides dlm in base [1]. The dlm package is still part of ResilientStorage in RHEL 8, but can't be provided? I wasn't able to find any answer to why that was changed. Can you provide any insight to the shift?
Second question, the current advice seems to be "dlm will be in centos-stream and you should use that." However, tdawson made a pretty explicit statement: "If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ... well, in my opinion, that's their problem."[2] These statements appear contradictory.
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
If I'm misunderstanding any of this please educate me.
Thank you, Judd
[1] http://mirror.centos.org/centos-7/7/os/x86_64/Packages/dlm-4.0.7-1.el7.x86_6... [2] https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-July/037034.html
On 8/28/20 6:58 AM, Judd O'Bannon via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 8/25/20 11:21 AM, Theodor Mittermair wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to inquire about the status of the "dlm" package on Centos 8, which is required for using 'lvmlockd', replacement of 'clvmd'. I also asked on #centos irc channel and was directed to this mailing list There is a corresponding bug ticket [2] for this issue for quite some time, but since the end-of-life of CentOS 6 grows closer, some people would like to replace their CentOS 6 Cluster with a CentOS 8 one, which is why I ask on this mailing list now.
With the release of CentOS 8.0 it seems there were some issues with HighAvailability in general [1], but seem to have been resolved with CentOS 8.1.
However, as already mentioned there is a separate ticket [2], for the dlm package, which is unresolved as far ( 2020-08-25, Centos8.2 ) as i am aware. This prevents the use of clustered lvm and gfs2 out of the box, not an uncommon use when configuring a HA Cluster, also described by RedHat documentation [3]. In that tickets' conversation, it is mentioned that "that package is not in RHEL .. we have released what is in RHEL", however someone else seemed to have been in contact with RedHat and received information that "...this package is in fact part of a RedHat repository and then CentOS members should be able to take a look into it again...".
I'd also like to bring attention to the following explicitly:
- dlm-lib and dlm seem to be built from the same source rpm, dlm-lib is
available while dlm is not.
- apparently at some point in time dlm could be downloaded from koji
[4], but no more. For testing purposes we built dlm ourselves, locally as well as on copr [5], which seems to work thus far.
- fedora (however much this might mean) provides dlm.
- It might just be a configuration error on the build system, if I
understood correctly, there was/is larger amounts of restructuring. Also see chders' post from 2020-08-21 [2], which provides a possible explanation and solution.
For completeness, you should be able reproduce the absence of that package with: "yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=BaseOS,AppStream,HighAvailability,epel,cr,centosplus,PowerTools,Devel,extras,fasttrack list available | grep dlm" or simply attempt to "yum install dlm" on your CentOS 8.x Installation.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is this an error on my end, am I doing something wrong or missing a configuration? If no, is there actually any political/technical/administrative/law based reason for the unavailability of the "dlm" package? If no, according to recent posts on the ticket [2], there might be a rather simple solution (simplified, declaring the package to be included in a repository), is it valid and who could do this if applicable?
with best regards Theodor Mittermair https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=4801 [1] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16553 [2] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16939 [3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm... [4] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=145 [5] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/astra/dlm/
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi Folks,
Some clarity will follow on how we plan to deliver Addon repositories like ResilientStorage, HighAvailability and NFV.
Because of Red Hat’s desire to develop Addons along with the next minor release of RHEL our plan is to enable ResilientStorage and NFV in CentOS Stream for direct consumption.
If you think a package belongs in another repository, we encourage you to open a CentOS Stream bugzilla to discuss with RHEL maintainers:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20L...
We do not plan to expand the portfolio of Addons for CentOS Linux.
If there is a group of interested folks who wish to maintain extra content built against CentOS Linux, you may apply for a Special Interest Group: https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide
Cheers! --Brian
My apologies as I just subscribed to this list, I'll likely break the thread up. I did my best to contain relevance above.
First question, the statement ""...Resilient Storage is not base...". There has been a shift from 7 to 8 that I don't understand. RHEL 7 provides dlm in ResilientStorage, then CentOS 7 provides dlm in base [1]. The dlm package is still part of ResilientStorage in RHEL 8, but can't be provided? I wasn't able to find any answer to why that was changed. Can you provide any insight to the shift?
Second question, the current advice seems to be "dlm will be in centos-stream and you should use that." However, tdawson made a pretty explicit statement: "If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ... well, in my opinion, that's their problem."[2] These statements appear contradictory.
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
Yes, it is different than CentOS Linux 7. I'm sorry, that is just the way it is. If it were up to me, I would push it .. it is not up to me.
If I'm misunderstanding any of this please educate me.
It has already been stated that we will bot be putting the addon items in CentOS Linux .. just in Stream.
You have to test and decide what you will use.
Thank you, Judd
[1] http://mirror.centos.org/centos-7/7/os/x86_64/Packages/dlm-4.0.7-1.el7.x86_6... [2] https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-July/037034.html
From: CentOS-devel centos-devel-bounces@centos.org on behalf of Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 13:07 To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Centos 8.x, dlm Package unavailable
CAUTION: This message originated externally, please use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments!
On 8/28/20 6:58 AM, Judd O'Bannon via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 8/25/20 11:21 AM, Theodor Mittermair wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to inquire about the status of the "dlm" package on Centos 8, which is required for using 'lvmlockd', replacement of 'clvmd'. I also asked on #centos irc channel and was directed to this mailing list There is a corresponding bug ticket [2] for this issue for quite some time, but since the end-of-life of CentOS 6 grows closer, some people would like to replace their CentOS 6 Cluster with a CentOS 8 one, which is why I ask on this mailing list now.
With the release of CentOS 8.0 it seems there were some issues with HighAvailability in general [1], but seem to have been resolved with CentOS 8.1.
However, as already mentioned there is a separate ticket [2], for the dlm package, which is unresolved as far ( 2020-08-25, Centos8.2 ) as i am aware. This prevents the use of clustered lvm and gfs2 out of the box, not an uncommon use when configuring a HA Cluster, also described by RedHat documentation [3]. In that tickets' conversation, it is mentioned that "that package is not in RHEL .. we have released what is in RHEL", however someone else seemed to have been in contact with RedHat and received information that "...this package is in fact part of a RedHat repository and then CentOS members should be able to take a look into it again...".
I'd also like to bring attention to the following explicitly:
- dlm-lib and dlm seem to be built from the same source rpm, dlm-lib is
available while dlm is not.
- apparently at some point in time dlm could be downloaded from koji
[4], but no more. For testing purposes we built dlm ourselves, locally as well as on copr [5], which seems to work thus far.
- fedora (however much this might mean) provides dlm.
- It might just be a configuration error on the build system, if I
understood correctly, there was/is larger amounts of restructuring. Also see chders' post from 2020-08-21 [2], which provides a possible explanation and solution.
For completeness, you should be able reproduce the absence of that package with: "yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=BaseOS,AppStream,HighAvailability,epel,cr,centosplus,PowerTools,Devel,extras,fasttrack list available | grep dlm" or simply attempt to "yum install dlm" on your CentOS 8.x Installation.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is this an error on my end, am I doing something wrong or missing a configuration? If no, is there actually any political/technical/administrative/law based reason for the unavailability of the "dlm" package? If no, according to recent posts on the ticket [2], there might be a rather simple solution (simplified, declaring the package to be included in a repository), is it valid and who could do this if applicable?
with best regards Theodor Mittermair https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkoji.mbox.centos.org%2Fkoji%2Fbuildinfo%3FbuildID%3D4801&data=02%7C01%7Cjudd.obannon%40rackspace.com%7C95b03022065d4215a0cf08d84b7d325f%7C570057f473ef41c8bcbb08db2fc15c2b%7C0%7C0%7C637342349428182226&sdata=1uu0JPTCRCiVMxMHBBN63ga7FvXxdtesvTrXNZddCHA%3D&reserved=0 [1] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.cento... [2] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.cento... [3] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccess.red... [4] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkoji.mbox.... [5] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcopr.fedor...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cent...
Hi Folks,
Some clarity will follow on how we plan to deliver Addon repositories like ResilientStorage, HighAvailability and NFV.
Because of Red Hat’s desire to develop Addons along with the next minor release of RHEL our plan is to enable ResilientStorage and NFV in CentOS Stream for direct consumption.
If you think a package belongs in another repository, we encourage you to open a CentOS Stream bugzilla to discuss with RHEL maintainers:
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.r...
We do not plan to expand the portfolio of Addons for CentOS Linux.
If there is a group of interested folks who wish to maintain extra content built against CentOS Linux, you may apply for a Special Interest Group: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cento...
Cheers! --Brian
My apologies as I just subscribed to this list, I'll likely break the thread up. I did my best to contain relevance above.
First question, the statement ""...Resilient Storage is not base...". There has been a shift from 7 to 8 that I don't understand. RHEL 7 provides dlm in ResilientStorage, then CentOS 7 provides dlm in base [1]. The dlm package is still part of ResilientStorage in RHEL 8, but can't be provided? I wasn't able to find any answer to why that was changed. Can you provide any insight to the shift?
Second question, the current advice seems to be "dlm will be in centos-stream and you should use that." However, tdawson made a pretty explicit statement: "If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ... well, in my opinion, that's their problem."[2] These statements appear contradictory.
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
Yes, it is different than CentOS Linux 7. I'm sorry, that is just the way it is. If it were up to me, I would push it .. it is not up to me.
If I'm misunderstanding any of this please educate me.
It has already been stated that we will bot be putting the addon items in CentOS Linux .. just in Stream.
You have to test and decide what you will use.
Thank you, Judd
[1] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmirror.cent... [2] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cent...
One further question for further clarification and us to plan how this might work in the future: Currently the HA (HighAvailability) addon is provided. Should we plan for that to be removed as a great deal of the rpms are in common between HA and RS?
Thank you,
Judd
On 8/28/20 4:08 PM, Judd O'Bannon via CentOS-devel wrote:
From: CentOS-devel centos-devel-bounces@centos.org on behalf of Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 13:07 To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Centos 8.x, dlm Package unavailable
CAUTION: This message originated externally, please use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments!
On 8/28/20 6:58 AM, Judd O'Bannon via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 8/25/20 11:21 AM, Theodor Mittermair wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to inquire about the status of the "dlm" package on Centos 8, which is required for using 'lvmlockd', replacement of 'clvmd'. I also asked on #centos irc channel and was directed to this mailing list There is a corresponding bug ticket [2] for this issue for quite some time, but since the end-of-life of CentOS 6 grows closer, some people would like to replace their CentOS 6 Cluster with a CentOS 8 one, which is why I ask on this mailing list now.
With the release of CentOS 8.0 it seems there were some issues with HighAvailability in general [1], but seem to have been resolved with CentOS 8.1.
However, as already mentioned there is a separate ticket [2], for the dlm package, which is unresolved as far ( 2020-08-25, Centos8.2 ) as i am aware. This prevents the use of clustered lvm and gfs2 out of the box, not an uncommon use when configuring a HA Cluster, also described by RedHat documentation [3]. In that tickets' conversation, it is mentioned that "that package is not in RHEL .. we have released what is in RHEL", however someone else seemed to have been in contact with RedHat and received information that "...this package is in fact part of a RedHat repository and then CentOS members should be able to take a look into it again...".
I'd also like to bring attention to the following explicitly:
- dlm-lib and dlm seem to be built from the same source rpm, dlm-lib is
available while dlm is not.
- apparently at some point in time dlm could be downloaded from koji
[4], but no more. For testing purposes we built dlm ourselves, locally as well as on copr [5], which seems to work thus far.
- fedora (however much this might mean) provides dlm.
- It might just be a configuration error on the build system, if I
understood correctly, there was/is larger amounts of restructuring. Also see chders' post from 2020-08-21 [2], which provides a possible explanation and solution.
For completeness, you should be able reproduce the absence of that package with: "yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=BaseOS,AppStream,HighAvailability,epel,cr,centosplus,PowerTools,Devel,extras,fasttrack list available | grep dlm" or simply attempt to "yum install dlm" on your CentOS 8.x Installation.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is this an error on my end, am I doing something wrong or missing a configuration? If no, is there actually any political/technical/administrative/law based reason for the unavailability of the "dlm" package? If no, according to recent posts on the ticket [2], there might be a rather simple solution (simplified, declaring the package to be included in a repository), is it valid and who could do this if applicable?
with best regards Theodor Mittermair https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkoji.mbox.centos.org%2Fkoji%2Fbuildinfo%3FbuildID%3D4801&data=02%7C01%7Cjudd.obannon%40rackspace.com%7C95b03022065d4215a0cf08d84b7d325f%7C570057f473ef41c8bcbb08db2fc15c2b%7C0%7C0%7C637342349428182226&sdata=1uu0JPTCRCiVMxMHBBN63ga7FvXxdtesvTrXNZddCHA%3D&reserved=0 [1] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.cento... [2] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.cento... [3] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccess.red... [4] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkoji.mbox.... [5] https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcopr.fedor...
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cent...
Hi Folks,
Some clarity will follow on how we plan to deliver Addon repositories like ResilientStorage, HighAvailability and NFV.
Because of Red Hat’s desire to develop Addons along with the next minor release of RHEL our plan is to enable ResilientStorage and NFV in CentOS Stream for direct consumption.
If you think a package belongs in another repository, we encourage you to open a CentOS Stream bugzilla to discuss with RHEL maintainers:
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.r...
We do not plan to expand the portfolio of Addons for CentOS Linux.
If there is a group of interested folks who wish to maintain extra content built against CentOS Linux, you may apply for a Special Interest Group: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.cento...
Cheers! --Brian
My apologies as I just subscribed to this list, I'll likely break the thread up. I did my best to contain relevance above.
First question, the statement ""...Resilient Storage is not base...". There has been a shift from 7 to 8 that I don't understand. RHEL 7 provides dlm in ResilientStorage, then CentOS 7 provides dlm in base [1]. The dlm package is still part of ResilientStorage in RHEL 8, but can't be provided? I wasn't able to find any answer to why that was changed. Can you provide any insight to the shift?
Second question, the current advice seems to be "dlm will be in centos-stream and you should use that." However, tdawson made a pretty explicit statement: "If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ... well, in my opinion, that's their problem."[2] These statements appear contradictory.
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
Yes, it is different than CentOS Linux 7. I'm sorry, that is just the way it is. If it were up to me, I would push it .. it is not up to me.
If I'm misunderstanding any of this please educate me.
It has already been stated that we will bot be putting the addon items in CentOS Linux .. just in Stream.
You have to test and decide what you will use.
Thank you, Judd
[1]Â https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmirror.cent... [2]Â https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.cent...
One further question for further clarification and us to plan how this might work in the future: Currently the HA (HighAvailability) addon is provided. Should we plan for that to be removed as a great deal of the rpms are in common between HA and RS?
Thank you,
Judd _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
We will continue delivering the HighAvailability addon in CentOS Linux 8
--Brian
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Brian Stinson bstinson@redhat.com wrote:
We will continue delivering the HighAvailability addon in CentOS Linux 8
--Brian
This is good. Can we get it into the "mock" configurations for CentOS 8, available if not enabled by default?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 7:58 AM Judd O'Bannon via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
On 8/25/20 11:21 AM, Theodor Mittermair wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to inquire about the status of the "dlm" package on Centos 8, which is required for using 'lvmlockd', replacement of 'clvmd'. I also asked on #centos irc channel and was directed to this mailing list There is a corresponding bug ticket [2] for this issue for quite some time, but since the end-of-life of CentOS 6 grows closer, some people would like to replace their CentOS 6 Cluster with a CentOS 8 one, which is why I ask on this mailing list now.
With the release of CentOS 8.0 it seems there were some issues with HighAvailability in general [1], but seem to have been resolved with CentOS 8.1.
However, as already mentioned there is a separate ticket [2], for the dlm package, which is unresolved as far ( 2020-08-25, Centos8.2 ) as i am aware. This prevents the use of clustered lvm and gfs2 out of the box, not an uncommon use when configuring a HA Cluster, also described by RedHat documentation [3]. In that tickets' conversation, it is mentioned that "that package is not in RHEL .. we have released what is in RHEL", however someone else seemed to have been in contact with RedHat and received information that "...this package is in fact part of a RedHat repository and then CentOS members should be able to take a look into it again...".
I'd also like to bring attention to the following explicitly:
- dlm-lib and dlm seem to be built from the same source rpm, dlm-lib is
available while dlm is not.
- apparently at some point in time dlm could be downloaded from koji
[4], but no more. For testing purposes we built dlm ourselves, locally as well as on copr [5], which seems to work thus far.
- fedora (however much this might mean) provides dlm.
- It might just be a configuration error on the build system, if I
understood correctly, there was/is larger amounts of restructuring. Also see chders' post from 2020-08-21 [2], which provides a possible explanation and solution.
For completeness, you should be able reproduce the absence of that package with: "yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=BaseOS,AppStream,HighAvailability,epel,cr,centosplus,PowerTools,Devel,extras,fasttrack list available | grep dlm" or simply attempt to "yum install dlm" on your CentOS 8.x Installation.
Therefore, I would like to ask: Is this an error on my end, am I doing something wrong or missing a configuration? If no, is there actually any political/technical/administrative/law based reason for the unavailability of the "dlm" package? If no, according to recent posts on the ticket [2], there might be a rather simple solution (simplified, declaring the package to be included in a repository), is it valid and who could do this if applicable?
with best regards Theodor Mittermair https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=4801 [1] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16553 [2] https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16939 [3] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm... [4] https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=145 [5] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/astra/dlm/
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi Folks,
Some clarity will follow on how we plan to deliver Addon repositories like ResilientStorage, HighAvailability and NFV.
Because of Red Hat’s desire to develop Addons along with the next minor release of RHEL our plan is to enable ResilientStorage and NFV in CentOS Stream for direct consumption.
If you think a package belongs in another repository, we encourage you to open a CentOS Stream bugzilla to discuss with RHEL maintainers:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20L...
We do not plan to expand the portfolio of Addons for CentOS Linux.
If there is a group of interested folks who wish to maintain extra content built against CentOS Linux, you may apply for a Special Interest Group: https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide
Cheers! --Brian
My apologies as I just subscribed to this list, I'll likely break the thread up. I did my best to contain relevance above.
First question, the statement ""...Resilient Storage is not base...". There has been a shift from 7 to 8 that I don't understand. RHEL 7 provides dlm in ResilientStorage, then CentOS 7 provides dlm in base [1]. The dlm package is still part of ResilientStorage in RHEL 8, but can't be provided? I wasn't able to find any answer to why that was changed. Can you provide any insight to the shift?
RHEL 7 does not provide dlm in base, and that is indeed a disparity between RHEL 7 and CentOS 7. I can perhaps provide some context as to how that happened.
In RHEL 7.2, the dlm-lib subpackage was added to the main repositories to satisfy dependencies added to other packages. The dlm package itself remained in the Resilient Storage AddOn, as RHEL only supports dlm with that AddOn and under specific configurations. As a result of the dlm-lib subpackage being moved to the mainline repository, the SRPM for dlm was delivered to CentOS as required. My guess is that context for this was not communicated and CentOS built and delivered the package as a whole. Once the disparity was noticed, it is likely that it was retained so as to not be disruptive to CentOS users.
Second question, the current advice seems to be "dlm will be in centos-stream and you should use that." However, tdawson made a pretty explicit statement: "If people are running their production machines on CentOS Stream ... well, in my opinion, that's their problem."[2] These statements appear contradictory.
They do, somewhat. That's partly because one is fact and one is opinion :)
Brian's statement on where the focus for AddOn repository content will be in the broader 8 ecosystem is 100% accurate. They will be available in CentOS Stream.
Using CentOS Stream in production is actually something that has a number of factors to it. CentOS Stream reflects the next RHEL release in development and provides availability to newer features and fixes as they are developed. However, like all in-development code bases, Stream will occasionally have bugs. Your deployment types, risk tolerances, and ability to self-service issue resolution all factor into what you use in production. Some people use Fedora in production, some rely on the value that a RHEL subscription brings for production workloads.
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
It's a bug in CentOS 7 that was kept unfixed. The feature set from RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 remains consistent, with it only being available in the Resilient Storage AddOn.
josh
If I'm misunderstanding any of this please educate me.
Thank you, Judd
[1] http://mirror.centos.org/centos-7/7/os/x86_64/Packages/dlm-4.0.7-1.el7.x86_6... [2] https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-July/037034.html _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the
business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same
thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
It's a bug in CentOS 7 that was kept unfixed. The feature set from RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 remains consistent, with it only being available in the Resilient Storage AddOn.
josh
Hi Josh, you are talking about RHEL consistency, but the point is CentOS "feature set" passing from 7 to 8 that has changed. As I see it: In RH EL 7 there was a dedicated group (as a paid add-on) for Resilient storage, providing lvm2-cluster, gfs2, ecc. In CentOS 7 that rpm recompiled yum group was made available to the community, so that at time of 7.2 for example I could transparently execute on my CentOS system:
# yum groupinstall "Resilient Storage" ... Dependencies Resolved
==================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ==================================================================================================== Installing for group install "Resilient Storage": dlm x86_64 4.0.6-1.el7 base 89 k gfs2-utils x86_64 3.1.9-3.el7 base 302 k lvm2-cluster x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 663 k Installing for dependencies: corosync x86_64 2.4.0-4.el7 base 213 k corosynclib x86_64 2.4.0-4.el7 base 125 k dlm-lib x86_64 4.0.6-1.el7 base 24 k libqb x86_64 1.0-1.el7 base 92 k resource-agents x86_64 3.9.5-82.el7_3.1 updates 360 k Updating for dependencies: device-mapper x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 269 k device-mapper-event x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 177 k device-mapper-event-libs x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 177 k device-mapper-libs x86_64 7:1.02.135-1.el7_3.1 updates 333 k device-mapper-persistent-data x86_64 0.6.3-1.el7 base 368 k lvm2 x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 1.1 M lvm2-libs x86_64 7:2.02.166-1.el7_3.1 updates 984 k
Transaction Summary ==================================================================================================== Install 3 Packages (+5 Dependent packages) Upgrade ( 7 Dependent packages)
I think it was made for an explicit decision, not by mistake. One of the reasons could be the typical bi-directional contribution model, useful for both parts, the community and Red Hat to improve their product offering. In RH EL 8 the group remains a paid add-on, so it is indeed consistent: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm... But CentOS project (and/or) Red Hat decided not to provide its recompiled packages to the community.
Gianluca
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:10 AM Gianluca Cecchi gianluca.cecchi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
It's a bug in CentOS 7 that was kept unfixed. The feature set from RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 remains consistent, with it only being available in the Resilient Storage AddOn.
josh
Hi Josh, you are talking about RHEL consistency, but the point is CentOS "feature set" passing from 7 to 8 that has changed. As I see it: In RH EL 7 there was a dedicated group (as a paid add-on) for Resilient storage, providing lvm2-cluster, gfs2, ecc. In CentOS 7 that rpm recompiled yum group was made available to the community, so that at time of 7.2 for example I could transparently execute on my CentOS system:
Yes. I explained why this happened in the original reply.
I think it was made for an explicit decision, not by mistake. One of the reasons could be the typical bi-directional contribution model, useful for both parts, the community and Red Hat to improve their product offering.
I can't comment on the CentOS side directly, but I do know that the collaboration between RHEL and CentOS was still in its early stages around that time and often there were surprises to both groups. I stand by my guess that it was a mistake to begin with, and that the choice to leave it there after the fact was the explicit decision. That makes logical sense given the timeframe, and I believe the CentOS project would want to minimize user disruption. Regardless, it is something we have now and won't change in 7.
In RH EL 8 the group remains a paid add-on, so it is indeed consistent: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm...
Indeed. A major release also brings with it the opportunity to realign the two distributions, which is what has happened here.
But CentOS project (and/or) Red Hat decided not to provide its recompiled packages to the community.
Brian has explained the focus for AddOns and how they will center around CentOS Stream in a previous email. They will be available there as the team bootstraps more of the AddOn content. I would venture that you'd most likely be able to use them directly on top of CentOS Linux as well, if your use cases can tolerate that.
Another alternative is to create a CentOS SIG that offers these packages up.
josh
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 08:26, Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:10 AM Gianluca Cecchi gianluca.cecchi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Just trying to piece this all together so I can explain to my peers
the business and community decisions going on here.
Currently someone that set up a cluster with gfs2 in 7 can't do the
same thing in 8 due to the dlm package missing. That is a loss of functionality and seems to indicate it's a bug or intentional reduction in feature set.
It's a bug in CentOS 7 that was kept unfixed. The feature set from RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 remains consistent, with it only being available in the Resilient Storage AddOn.
josh
Hi Josh, you are talking about RHEL consistency, but the point is CentOS "feature
set" passing from 7 to 8 that has changed.
As I see it: In RH EL 7 there was a dedicated group (as a paid add-on) for Resilient
storage, providing lvm2-cluster, gfs2, ecc.
In CentOS 7 that rpm recompiled yum group was made available to the
community, so that at time of 7.2 for example I could transparently execute on my CentOS system:
Yes. I explained why this happened in the original reply.
I think it was made for an explicit decision, not by mistake. One of the
reasons could be the typical bi-directional contribution model, useful for both parts, the community and Red Hat to improve their product offering.
I can't comment on the CentOS side directly, but I do know that the collaboration between RHEL and CentOS was still in its early stages around that time and often there were surprises to both groups. I
For the most part there is little in what is delivered onto first ftp.redhat.com and then git.centos.org about what packages are 'shipped' and 'not-shipped'. This means that these differences between CentOS and Red Hat releases have existed in previous CentOS releases for different packages. Usually by the time someone who had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions found the discrepancy, the package had been shipped and was considered permanent in CentOS. My understanding that other than by email communication or a manual audit, the only items that give a clue that something is not shipped are modules which in their build state tell the Module Build System what packages are to be included in the compose and which ones are to be filtered out.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:03 AM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
For the most part there is little in what is delivered onto first ftp.redhat.com and then git.centos.org about what packages are 'shipped' and 'not-shipped'. This means that these differences between CentOS and Red Hat releases have existed in previous CentOS releases for different packages. Usually by the time someone who had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions found the discrepancy, the package had been shipped and was considered permanent in CentOS. My understanding that other than by email communication or a manual audit, the only items that give a clue that something is not shipped are modules which in their build state tell the Module Build System what packages are to be included in the compose and which ones are to be filtered out.
It's very frustrating. "quota-devel" was my pet peeve, snce it's used to build Samba with full doman controller features enabled. The decisions to use these libraries for build dependencies inernal to Red Hat, but not to publish them to subscrbiers or, now, to provide them only in "Stream" is crazy making and will mess with library dependency resolution when building packages which rely on those components.
Am 17.09.20 um 15:24 schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:03 AM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
For the most part there is little in what is delivered onto first ftp.redhat.com and then git.centos.org about what packages are 'shipped' and 'not-shipped'. This means that these differences between CentOS and Red Hat releases have existed in previous CentOS releases for different packages. Usually by the time someone who had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions found the discrepancy, the package had been shipped and was considered permanent in CentOS. My understanding that other than by email communication or a manual audit, the only items that give a clue that something is not shipped are modules which in their build state tell the Module Build System what packages are to be included in the compose and which ones are to be filtered out.
It's very frustrating. "quota-devel" was my pet peeve, snce it's used to build Samba with full doman controller features enabled. The decisions to use these libraries for build dependencies inernal to Red Hat, but not to publish them to subscrbiers or, now, to provide them only in "Stream" is crazy making and will mess with library dependency resolution when building packages which rely on those components.
At least for quota-devel its found in
dnf config-manager --enable Devel
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/Devel/x86_64/os/Packages/
check also
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-March/036644.html
-- Leon
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:52 AM Leon Fauster via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
Am 17.09.20 um 15:24 schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:03 AM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
For the most part there is little in what is delivered onto first ftp.redhat.com and then git.centos.org about what packages are 'shipped' and 'not-shipped'. This means that these differences between CentOS and Red Hat releases have existed in previous CentOS releases for different packages. Usually by the time someone who had a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions found the discrepancy, the package had been shipped and was considered permanent in CentOS. My understanding that other than by email communication or a manual audit, the only items that give a clue that something is not shipped are modules which in their build state tell the Module Build System what packages are to be included in the compose and which ones are to be filtered out.
It's very frustrating. "quota-devel" was my pet peeve, snce it's used to build Samba with full doman controller features enabled. The decisions to use these libraries for build dependencies inernal to Red Hat, but not to publish them to subscrbiers or, now, to provide them only in "Stream" is crazy making and will mess with library dependency resolution when building packages which rely on those components.
At least for quota-devel its found in
dnf config-manager --enable Devel
I'm not saynkg it's not available now for CentOS. It wasn't available, originally, and at last look RHEL does not publish the binary at all. Before my subscription expired, I was firmly told that such packages "weren't supported" and would not be published, even though they're built automatically along with compiling the quota SRPM and are used to build other packages internally. The segregation of build packjages into a private, internal repository is frankly one of my notable dissappointments with RHEL 8.
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/Devel/x86_64/os/Packages/
check also
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2020-March/036644.html
Yes, I used to publish RPM building tools for "quota" along with my Samba compilation suite. I gave up compiling Samba on RHEL directly because of just such issues and am compelled to use CentOS 8 because of it.
-
Brian Stinson -
Gianluca Cecchi -
Johnny Hughes -
Josh Boyer -
Judd O'Bannon -
Leon Fauster -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Stephen John Smoogen