From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D703A7A5B6 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:25:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BEB962869A for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:25:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:25:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 656FC40EFF for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:25:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 17:25:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Sterz References: <20220704150543.523740-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <20220704150543.523740-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.017 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix: make 'ceph-volume' conditional on quincy install X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:25:38 -0000 With pve-manager 7.2-6, installing pacific will fail very qickly, as the package 'ceph-volume' cannot be found. Tested this patch by installing pacific and quincy. One comment inline Tested-By: Aaron Lauterer On 7/4/22 17:05, Stefan Sterz wrote: > when installing non-quincy versions, 'ceph-volume' is not contained in > the respective repositories and, thus, the install process would fail. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Sterz > --- > tested this by installing ceph pacific and quincy, but my setup wasn't > really clean so i ran into some unrelated issues. > > PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm b/PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm > index a85df130..8e6c8667 100755 > --- a/PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm > +++ b/PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm > @@ -176,13 +176,16 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > my @ceph_packages = qw( > ceph > ceph-common > - ceph-volume > ceph-mds > ceph-fuse > gdisk > nvme-cli > ); > > + if ($cephver eq 'quincy') { Wouldn't it be better to check if we are not installing octopus & pacific? Then it will work for any newer Ceph version as well. Once we do not support octopus and pacific anymore, we can add 'ceph-volume' unconditionally to the list of packages to install. > + push @ceph_packages, 'ceph-volume'; > + } > + > print "start installation\n"; > > # this flag helps to determine when apt is actually done installing (vs. partial extracing)