perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Mark Feit <>]

(Sorry for the late reply; just getting caught up…)

Matthew Woodward writes:

>Perfsonar seems to rely on the "python-Jinja2" version 2.8 package, 
>while SaltStack-Minion requires "python-jinja2" version 2.7 package. 
>(Note that these are named slightly differently. The one has a capital 
>"J" in Jinja, while the other has a lowercase "j" in jinja. Also, the 
>version 2.8 package comes from "a-Internet2-staging" repo, while the 
>other comes from "base/7/x86_64" repo.)

This is one of those situations where we built the package for CentOS 6 
because it wasn’t part of that distribution using the latest stable release. 
Red Hat’s convention 
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Case_Sensitivity) says that 
if the author has a case preference, it should be followed.  I did that, but 
since CentOS 7 wasn’t on my radar at the time, I didn’t check to see if 
they’d added it.  It turned out they had and did it with an all-lowercase 
name.  Debian has an all-lowercase convention, so between those two, I’m not 
going to tilt at that windmill.

>Since 2.8 is already installed, I'm running into a conflict in getting 
>the 2.7 jinja2 dependency installed for the SaltStack Minion.
>
>Does Perfsonar require version 2.8? Can I safely downgrade to 2.7?

I don’t see anything in the release notes between 2.7 and the current version 
that would cause problems, so a downgrade should be safe.  

Jinja2, Werkzeug and Flask all have this problem, so I think in the interest 
of broadest compatibility, I’m going to change them all to lowercase and hope 
Red Hat doesn’t start following its own conventions.  :-)

I’ve opened a bug on this and will get it squared away before the final 
release:    https://github.com/perfsonar/pscheduler/issues/215

--Mark