perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Mark Feit <>]

Jean-Michel Barbet writes:

Each time I run yum update, I get this message :

Error: Package: jq-1.6.10-1.el7.x86_64 (@perfSONAR)
            Requires: libonig.so.2()(64bit)
            Removing: oniguruma-5.9.5-3.el7.x86_64 (@epel)
                libonig.so.2()(64bit)
            Updated By: oniguruma-6.8.2-1.el7.x86_64 (epel)
               ~libonig.so.5()(64bit)

I then run yum update with --skip-broken and it is OK but I am wondering
if this can be fixed for future updates... I suppose it would be if jq
from EPEL was used instead of the version provided by Perfsonar.

Upgrading to oniguruma-6.8.2 shouldn’t be a problem; I checked several production systems that auto-update and found them all running oniguruma-6.8.2-1.  The jq RPM has been around for two years and specifies a dependence on oniguruma but not a version and that version of oniguruma appeared in EPEL about a year. 

 

Is there anything about the way YUM on your system is configured, such as not using the usual mirrors or using alternate repositories with priorities?

 

Is there a reason to have a special version of jq in the Perfsonar repo ?

 

Yes, there is.  The current releases of jq and PyJQ have a bug in which integers larger than 31 bits aren’t handled correctly.  That was causing problems for a large user of perfSONAR that we needed to fix immediately.  Our version contains that fix and is numbered to always be ahead of the released version.  The maintainers of jq are working on converting its innards using arbitrary-precision numbers internally that will eliminate the need for the patch, but they also tend to go years between releases.

 

There’s extensive discussion about it in https://github.com/perfsonar/pscheduler/issues/717  and you’ll also find links to the issues I raised with the jq and PyJQ maintainers.

 

Hope that helps.

 

--Mark