Open Stack

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

OK, I went forward and requested a revert for the patch [1].

Also, I've updated release notes for 2014.1.3 [2] that is the first
and only released Icehouse version that included the patch with the
following text:

"* A new runtime dependency on conntrack-tools in L3 agent sneaked in
the release. This is an issue for at least one of target distributions
for Icehouse (specifically, RHEL6/RHEL7), so a revert for the patch
that introduced the dependency was requested:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132052/ Packagers of 2014.1.3 release
are left with dilemma: either they also revert the patch in their
downstream packages, or they introduce a new runtime conntrack-tools
dependency for Neutron L3 agent."

I think that's all we can do to mitigate the problem.

[1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132052/
[2]: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/2014.1.3

/Ihar

On 30/10/14 16:32, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo wrote:
> +1 for revert.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka
>> <ihrachys at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> it seems that we've missed a new runtime dependency being
> backported recently into Icehouse. The patch is [1], and it
> introduced conntrack-tools dependency for L3 agent. This turned out
> as a problem for existing distributions, specifically RHOSP5 [2]
> which is built for both RHEL6 and RHEL7. In case of RHEL7,
> conntrack-tools is not available neither in base OS repos nor in
> RHOSP5 specific ones. So Red Hat will need to import the package
> into RHOSP5 repos. That's not convenient but doable. The problem
> starts when you consider importing the package for RHEL6 too. It
> may turn out that some support from kernel may be missing (we're
> going to check that in the very near future).
> 
> If RHEL6 conntrack-tools won't play nice, we'll be forced to patch
> the fix out for the platform. I wonder whether we'll consider
> reverting the patch in upstream if that's the case?
> 
>>> It seems to me that this should be reverted based on the
>>> information you've provided. This shouldn't have been merged
>>> given it pulls in this new runtime dependency, which may also
>>> pull in new kernel dependencies. I don't see any other way
>>> around this other than to revert the change.
>>> 
> So my general point is that we should pay more attention to those
> kind of runtime dependencies sneaking into stable branches, because
> it may result in huge problems in downstream.
> 
> Also, consider this email as a heads-up for other distributions. 
> Should we update release notes for the latest release to include
> that info?
> 
> [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/124375/ [2]:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158871
> 
> /Ihar
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>> Openstack-stable-maint mailing list 
>>> Openstack-stable-maint at lists.openstack.org 
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-stable-maint
>>
>>
>>> 
_______________________________________________
>> Openstack-stable-maint mailing list 
>> Openstack-stable-maint at lists.openstack.org 
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-stable-maint
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUUl5tAAoJEC5aWaUY1u579DIH/R3f1uBqCXjRVbiDPyKUHhYt
CAiIbfhEa098ZMy/PhCIvPGWPIxWumG73ePGcnCsqRFlIdTfgs2kTDODGWLdVmDR
T1bVfI6RSZ6j74p1qfa9UT7GtRQwi4AtCwD1nnuYHtudYuKyRbDfp8UYN0JTSVf+
HNbBufmTMqwpAkLPo0XFZrkpNYZeHyPKHAQd1jSYo+wKaSpKK2Xam7IFQQ/xhqxT
dBAcpume/nQY/V6/wco9u5QYgFkyiiNutynocpym4RPk5TvmmPmcyDLQV4TxCIu7
ytJ4ul3iC6sP1O3v4JD9PdfqciCjb/yeF4qJwEI/16wmWRDmLwqnOOfCkb9Bu04=
=C/yD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----