Bug 1339870

Summary:	/usr/bin/rados depends on libradosstriper.so.1
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) <kdreyer>
Component:	RADOS	Assignee:	Samuel Just <sjust>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Rachana Patel <racpatel>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	2.0	CC:	amaredia, ceph-eng-bugs, dzafman, gmeno, hnallurv, kchai, kdreyer, nlevine, racpatel, sjust, tchandra
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	2.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	RHEL: ceph-10.2.2-2.el7cp Ubuntu: ceph_10.2.2-3redhat1	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-08-23 19:39:34 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1343229

Description Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-05-26 03:29:00 UTC

Description of problem:
/usr/bin/rados depends on libradosstriper.so.1, and we do not want to ship libradosstriper in RHCS.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ceph-common-10.2.1-8.el7cp

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
yum install ceph-common

Actual results:
yum installs libradosstriper1

Expected results:
yum should not install libradosstriper1

Comment 1 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-05-26 04:38:59 UTC

Looks like  $(LIBRADOSSTRIPER) was added to rados_LDADD in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commit/49ab5bb3c436fbe069327859c76b351c4fe06043

I don't know whether we would want to back that patch out downstream (if that's feasible?), or whether we should just ship libradosstriper in the product.

Neil, what is your opinion?

Comment 2 Samuel Just 2016-05-26 14:52:50 UTC

It's there to support some additional options to the rados command for manipulating striped objects, came from the community.

Comment 3 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-05-26 14:56:02 UTC

Sam, how easy/hard would it be to back out this change in jewel?

Comment 4 Neil Levine 2016-05-26 15:56:38 UTC

Kne, I am not clear on why you don't want to ship this library?

Comment 5 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-05-26 16:09:50 UTC

In RHCS 1.3 we made the decision to not ship it: bz 1212208

Comment 6 Neil Levine 2016-05-26 16:19:19 UTC

The comments on 1212208 seem to indicate there were some concerns about the test coverage of the package, and hence stability & maintainability. 

Sam: are you willing to vouch and maintain the code?

Comment 7 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2016-05-26 18:56:17 UTC

Discussed in the scrub call today with Neil and Sam. Sam will patch this out upstream, and in the meantime we will ship libradosstriper in order to satisfy the package dependency for betas of RHCS 2. But we need to patch this out before GA.

Comment 9 Samuel Just 2016-06-02 20:42:44 UTC

Just pushed wip-bz1341859 to rhgerrit.  I'm not sure how to verify that the packages build.

Comment 10 Samuel Just 2016-06-03 21:58:45 UTC

In rhgerrit as wip-bz1339870 (sorry, I had the bz number wrong in the previous message).

Comment 13 Samuel Just 2016-06-14 18:03:54 UTC

*** Bug 1345789 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 21 errata-xmlrpc 2016-08-23 19:39:34 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-1755.html