I'm trying to rebuild libarrow in CBS for ceph-reef for c9s. ceph-reef in c9s does not use epel, this was before using epel was an option. The rebuild is required because fmount built thrift-0.15.0 in cbs. (two years ago. hmmm.)
(It looks like I started to do the rebuild a while ago and got sidetracked. Now someone is asking me to finish.)
The dep chain is ceph->libarrow->thrift->protobuf->... Both thrift-0.14.0 and 0.15.0, thrift want protobuf >= 3.15.0, so I have built protobuf-3.19.0 in cbs because the protobuf in CRB is 3.14.0. The last successful builds of thrift and libarrow used protobuf-3.19.0 from cbs (https://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=37602 and https://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=40573)
But I just tried to rebuild libarrow now and it is getting protobuf-3.14.0 from CRB instead of protobuf-3.19.0 from cbs.
Both thrift-0.15.0 and protobuf-3.19.0 are tagged storage9s-ceph-reef-candidate.
I'm trying to understand why the build is not getting protobuf-3.19.0 from cbs in this scratch build https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5001125
I tried untagging and retagging protobuf-3.19.0 and waiting for the repo to rebuild and it still isn't getting 3.19.0
Thanks
Metadata Update from @arrfab: - Issue tagged with: cbs, investigation, low-gain, medium-trouble
Metadata Update from @arrfab: - Issue assigned to arrfab
First question : as you decided to hard depend on Epel9, why are you trying to rebuild packages that are in epel9.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libarrow/tree/epel9 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/thrift/tree/epel9
Just by looking at your attempt, its picking thrift from epel instead of yours because it's already higher version, that it self was built against (per epel policy) against lower protobuf .. So we don't have any infra problem but just a conflicting pkg situation. I'll let you decide if you want to still rely on epel or not but if you want to stick with epel, just drop/untag all pkgs you built and that are now conflicting with each other ?
@gwmngilfen and myself spend already enough time just to find out that pkgs are available in multiple repositories so nothing to fix at our (infra) side
Metadata Update from @arrfab: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on Reporter (was: Needs Review)
Closing, per thread on devel lis
Metadata Update from @arrfab: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed with Explanation - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.