[LU-475] RPMs do not contain kernel requirements.

• Status: Resolved
• Project: Lustre
• Type: Bug
• Priority: Major
• Reporter: Chris Gearing (Inactive)
• Assignee: Brian Murrell (Inactive)
• Resolution: Duplicate
• Severity: 3

Description

The rpms for this build http://newbuild.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-reviews/1180/build_type=client,distro=el5,arch=x86_64,ib_stack=inkernel/? and the server version do not contain the kernel dependancy information as part of the RPM.

I.e. the kernel rpm does not say which kernel it provides, and the client modules does not say which kernel is requires.

It may well be that other information is also missing, but this information certainly is. I've also not check to see if this is a per branch or build thing.

Issue Links

• duplicates: LU-127 lustre modules on rhel should require...

Comments

[Brian Murrell (Inactive)]

The rpms for this build http://newbuild.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-reviews/1180/build_type=client,distro=el5,arch=x86_64,ib_stack=inkernel/? and the server version do not contain the kernel dependancy information as part of the RPM.

For the client modules and the server kernel, this does not seem to be true:

$ rpm -q --requires -p lustre-client-modules-1.8.6-2.6.18_238.12.1.el5_gce5e033.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
kernel = 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

$ rpm -q --provides -p kernel-2.6.18-238.12.1.el5_lustre.g529529a.x86_64.rpm 
kernel = 2.6.18
kernel-drm = 4.3.0
kernel-x86_64 = 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5_lustre.g529529a
kernel = 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5_lustre.g529529a

Although the server modules is not requiring a specific kernel:

$ rpm -q --requires -p lustre-modules-1.8.6-2.6.18_238.12.1.el5_lustre.g529529a_gcfaa163.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

But all in all, this is LU-127 (followed up by LU-257, both of) which was(were) not landed on b1_8.

[Brian Murrell (Inactive)]

I should add that IIRC, I discussed this issue with the b1_8 release team (quite a while ago) and they declined to land this at the time. Perhaps now that we are open and doing releases on that branch they might reconsider. You might want to bring this up with them to see if that's the case.