[Gluster-devel] Removing glupy from release 5.7

[Niels de Vos]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:08:25AM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:09:55PM -0700, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:36 AM Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:43 AM Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan <
> > > atumball at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> We recently noticed that in one of the package update on builder (ie,
> > >> centos7.x machines), python3.6 got installed as a dependency. So, yes, it
> > >> is possible to have python3 in centos7 now.
> > >>
> > >
> > > EPEL updated from python34 to python36 recently, but C7 doesn't have
> > > python3 in the base. I don't think we've ever used EPEL packages for
> > > building.
> > >
> > > And GlusterFS-5 isn't python3 ready.
> > >
> > 
> > Correction: GlusterFS-5 is mostly or completely python3 ready.  FWIW,
> > python33 is available on both RHEL7 and CentOS7 from the Software
> > Collection Library (SCL), and python34 and now python36 are available from
> > EPEL.
> > 
> > But packages built for the CentOS Storage SIG have never used the SCL or
> > EPEL (EPEL not allowed) and the shebangs in the .py files are converted
> > from /usr/bin/python3 to /usr/bin/python2 during the rpmbuild %prep stage.
> > All the python dependencies for the packages remain the python2 flavors.
> > AFAIK the centos-regression machines ought to be building the same way.
> 
> Indeed, there should not be a requirement on having EPEL enabled on the
> CentOS-7 builders. At least not for the building of the glusterfs
> tarball. We still need to do releases of glusterfs-4.1 and glusterfs-5,
> until then it is expected to have python2 as the (only?) version for the
> system. Is it possible to remove python3 from the CentOS-7 builders and
> run the jobs that require python3 on the Fedora builders instead?

Actually, if the python-devel package for python3 is installed on the
CentOS-7 builders, things may work too. It still feels like some sort of
Frankenstein deployment, and we don't expect to this see in production
environments. But maybe this is a workaround in case something really,
really, REALLY depends on python3 on the builders.

Niels