Description of problem:
Issue with python-suds package in RHEL7
Description
What problem/issue/behavior are you having trouble with? What do you expect to see?
Upstream Ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/suds/ticket/359
Issue where python-suds has a bad logic with formatting its log errors.
Bug is fixed in the 0.7-0.4.94664ddd46a6.el7ost version, but not available in RHEL7.
Customer would like to request a backport of the existing 0.7-0.4.94664ddd46a6.el7ost package to OSP 8 repositories.
The backport is needed for Nimble storage, specifically the OpenStack Cinder driver for Nimble uses the suds client
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
OSP 8 repositories need to include the new python-suds package
How reproducible:
Can install version 0.7 like this from OSP 10 repositories, but would need this in OSP 8 repositories if possible.
~~~
[root@undercloud-2 ~]# yum update python-suds --enablerepo=rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms
Loaded plugins: priorities, search-disabled-repos
rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms | 4.0 kB 00:00:00
(1/3): rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms/7Server/x86_64/group | 104 B 00:00:00
(2/3): rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms/7Server/x86_64/updateinfo | 80 kB 00:00:00
(3/3): rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms/7Server/x86_64/primary_db | 419 kB 00:00:00
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package python-suds.noarch 0:0.4.1-5.el7 will be updated
---> Package python-suds.noarch 0:0.7-0.4.94664ddd46a6.el7ost will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Updating:
python-suds noarch 0.7-0.4.94664ddd46a6.el7ost rhel-7-server-openstack-10-rpms 234 k
Transaction Summary
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Upgrade 1 Package
Total download size: 234 k
Is this ok [y/d/N]:
~~~
Additional info:
Here is the change log:
~~~
* Fri Aug 12 2016 Haïkel Guémar <hguemar> - 0.7-0.4.94664dd
- Refresh patch
* Thu Aug 11 2016 Haïkel Guémar <hguemar> - 0.7-0.3.94664dd
- Fix previous patch
* Thu Aug 11 2016 Haïkel Guémar <hguemar> - 0.7-0.2.94664dd
- Add compat methods patches w/ 0.6 release
* Fri Jan 01 2016 Scott Talbert <swt> - 0.7-0.1.94664dd
- Switched to Jurko fork of suds
- Modernize python packaging, build python3 package
- Fixed bogus changelog dates
* Thu Jun 18 2015 Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng.org> - 0.4.1-8
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild
~~~
*) The python-suds project got forked to: https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds
*) Enhancement advisory for OSP 10 which contains python-suds 0.7: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2016-2948.html
*) The fork was integrated here for newton: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343663
And here: https://github.com/rdo-packages/designate-distgit/commit/1ff6815bb8621e4c58d2cb2548003ec83dfc05a1
According to the customer, yes. It fixed their problem. However, no more tests have been executed and I have not assessed nor even seen the customer's system.
Any testing/verification that you'd want me to do?
(In reply to Andreas Karis from comment #7)
> According to the customer, yes. It fixed their problem. However, no more
> tests have been executed and I have not assessed nor even seen the
> customer's system.
>
> Any testing/verification that you'd want me to do?
OK, if the customer has verified, then as long as our CI passes, we'll deliver it in the next update
From the customer:
Yes the 0.7.0 package has been validated to work on our clusters. Specifically the version I used was python-suds-0.7-0.4.94664ddd46a6.
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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:0858