Bug#990990: unblock: libcgroup/2.0
El 20/07/21 a las 00:48, Adrian Bunk escribió:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 03:07:49PM +0200, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:27:35 +0200 Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 12-07-2021 18:45, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > > This was already discussed in
> > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959022
> > > >
> > > > My takeaway from that discussion was, that rdeps of cgroup-tools, would
> > > > itself have to be made cgroupv2 aware, especially OpenStack and its
> > > > components.
> > >
> > > That resembles my understanding of that discussion too.
> >
> > Mine too.
> >
> > zigo, are there any news from openstack about this?
> >
> > >
> > > > Have those rdeps been tested successfully with libcgroup/cgroup-tools
> > > > from experimental?
> > >
> > > I'm not in favor of doing this transition now.
> > >
> >
> > Please, keep in mind this comment, made before the release of 2.0:
> > "we are planning something for next week. The version number will
> > probably be 2.0 - with expectation that the v2 cycle will have
> > continously breaking ABI. When we are happy where it is, we will push
> > out v3 which will then maintain ABI through its lifetime."
> > https://github.com/libcgroup/libcgroup/issues/12#issuecomment-825816328
>
> What kind of ABI is this referring to?
I am afraid I haven't found any details about this, or asked for them
(yet). Sorry for my quick answer. I intended to say that we can't expect
the v2 cycle to be stable. But that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't
get into a debian stable release. Sorry if this was just noise.
>
> Based on soname and package name, the libcgroup1 in experimental
> claims to be ABI compatible with the library in buster.
> Changes in bookworm would be a normal library transition.
Indeed.
>
> OpenStack uses cgroup-tools, which is the only reason why libcgroup
> stayed in bullseye at all.
> My suggestion was basically asking whether 2.0 would be better for
> using with the version of OpenStack in bullseye, this is similar to
> your question to Thomas above.
>
> If cgroup-tools in *bookworm* would be incompatible with OpenStack in
> bullseye, this could be resolved with Breaks on the bullseye versions
> of cinder-common/nova-compute - this is irrelevant for discussing which
> version of libcgroup to ship in bullseye.
Yes. Again, sorry for introducing noise.
Just for the record, cgroup-tools (e.g. cgcreate or any other tool) in
bookworm won't (or shouldn't) be incompatible with OpenStack in
bullseye, since those cgroup-tools support cgroupv1 and cgroupv2. But
the rdeps *also need to support cgroupv2* to make use of the correct
resource paths.
It is useless to have libcgroup supporting cgroupv2 in bullseye if the
rdeps are not aware of it. I'll give more details in my answer to
Thomas.
Cheers,
-- Santiago
Reply to: