images/server: Updates to package installation

[anoopcs9]

• Use Samba v4.23 for ceph20.
• Switch to Storage SIG ceph tentacle packages for ceph20 on CentOS.
• Generalize a switch case for CentOS based package selection.

Pull request has been modified.

[anoopcs9]

Forgot to remove the shellcheck waiver (diff).

[phlogistonjohn]

• Switch to Storage SIG ceph tentacle packages for ceph20 on CentOS.

I'm not in favor of this. We ship as part of ceph when the smb mgr module is used. The ceph containers are built using the packages that appear in shaman/chacra. We should use the same set of packages to be as close to ceph upstream as possible.

[anoopcs9]

• Switch to Storage SIG ceph tentacle packages for ceph20 on CentOS.

I'm not in favor of this. We ship as part of ceph when the smb mgr module is used. The ceph containers are built using the packages that appear in shaman/chacra. We should use the same set of packages to be as close to ceph upstream as possible.

Can you elaborate on where and how much we expect to deviate with distro packages? Starting with v20.2.2 (or even now with 20.1.0) ceph20 will have the exact same version from Storage SIG.

[phlogistonjohn]

I don't know how much they differ and that's part of the issue. I do know how the RPMs produced by the ceph CI work and where all that is managed. My main point is that the images we build specifically to be consumed by ceph users should hew as closely to what the ceph images have - and that implies the packages produced by ceph directly not the storage sig IMO.

[anoopcs9]

I don't know how much they differ and that's part of the issue. I do know how the RPMs produced by the ceph CI work and where all that is managed. My main point is that the images we build specifically to be consumed by ceph users should hew as closely to what the ceph images have - and that implies the packages produced by ceph directly not the storage sig IMO.

I have confidence in how Ceph releases are packaged in Storage SIG. It is actively maintained. There's also the problem with the current tentacle RPM builds that we consume via shaman infrastructure which is based on the moving tentacle branch and NOT the actual tentacle-release branch. It is in our best interest to ship released versions and not something which might become the next.

[anoopcs9]

@phlogistonjohn Sorry, we forgot to add do-not-merge and priority-review kicked in to get this merged (we had an approving review already). Let's continue the discussion though based on my latest comment.

[phlogistonjohn]

It's fine. I'll just say we need to keep a keen eye on ceph upstream feedback in case people start adopting the feature on tentacle and issues ever get reported that could be due to mismatches in the images. I am most concerned about the cephfs proxy in particular but we'll see how things go.