[14:48] <Eighth_Doctor> slyon: hey, you around?
[14:49] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: hey!
[14:50] <Eighth_Doctor> how are we doing for https://github.com/canonical/netplan/pull/285?
[14:50] <Eighth_Doctor> and VXLAN support?
[14:51] <Eighth_Doctor> also, is it intentional that netplan can't built on RHEL 8?
[14:51] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: Implementation is done for VRF, currently under review.
[14:51] <Eighth_Doctor> I tried building netplan on RHEL 8, and it choked on a missing glib2 function
[14:52] <slyon> VXLAN is next up on my list, a draft has been posted in https://github.com/canonical/netplan/pull/272 – but that needs quite some extra work, still
[14:52] <slyon> both VRF and VXLAN are planed to be released in the upcoming netplan v0.105 due in August
[14:52] <Eighth_Doctor> okay
[14:53] <slyon> It is certainly not intentional that netplan can't be built on RHEL 8... did you try using `make` or `meson`?
[14:53] <slyon> ah the breaking glib change... I think I made it functional using old and new glib... let me check
[14:54] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: this patch should be included in the current 0.104 release: https://github.com/canonical/netplan/commit/15c98fec3948c19854f270225f552aa50d9cabcd
[14:54] <slyon> is there any other glib problem?
[14:55] <Eighth_Doctor> yeah
[14:55] <Eighth_Doctor> gimme a sec and I'll pull it up
[14:56] <Eighth_Doctor> I do vastly prefer meson over make, but I haven't switched the Fedora/EPEL package to it yet
[14:56] <Eighth_Doctor> I don't think 0.104 had it
[14:57] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: ok. for < 0.104 you could probably apply/adopt the patch I pasted above to make it work, using old glib
[14:58] <Eighth_Doctor> the glib patch is in 0.104
[14:58] <Eighth_Doctor> it still ftbfs
[14:58] <Eighth_Doctor> there's a different glib2 function
[14:58]  * Eighth_Doctor is running the build again to get that issue
[14:59] <slyon> wrt meson: we need a relatively new meson (>= 0.61 IIRC) so that probably won't work for RHEL
[14:59] <Eighth_Doctor> yeah, it's currently at 0.58
[15:00] <Eighth_Doctor> so I think I'm stuck with make for a while
[15:00] <slyon> yes.
[15:00] <Eighth_Doctor> slyon: g_clear_list() doesn't exist in glib2 2.56
[15:00] <slyon> let's see if we can find a solution to that other glib issue... I might have missed it in Debian/Ubuntu
[15:00] <Eighth_Doctor> which is what's present in RHEL 8
[15:01] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: I need to run for a meeting now. Will have a look at g_clear_list() later. (Or if you feel like, you could prepare a patch/PR)
[15:01] <slyon> thank you very much for your involvement in netplan to cover the RPM side, btw!
[15:02] <Eighth_Doctor> 👍️
[15:08] <Eighth_Doctor> slyon: I'm not sure how to deal with g_clear_list(), since I am not very familiar with glib2 stuff
[15:08] <Eighth_Doctor> but if you can find a fix later today, that'd be great
[15:33] <slyon> I guess we could add something like this https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/1943 to a header, isolated by a "#if GLIB_CHECK_VERSION (2, 56, 0)" macro to locally define that function for builds on old glib
[15:55] <slyon> Eighth_Doctor: does something like this work for you? https://pastebin.com/NtdhQPHH
[15:55] <Eighth_Doctor> slyon: I can't access pastebin.com here
[15:55] <Eighth_Doctor> can you use paste.centos.org or similar pastebin?
[15:56] <slyon> https://paste.centos.org/view/acceab72
[15:56] <slyon> trying to reproduce this on Ubuntu Bionic (glib 2.56) I can see another similar issue: g_hash_table_steal_extended -Werror=implicit-function-declaration – It might need a similar fix
[15:57] <Eighth_Doctor> 👍️
[15:57] <Eighth_Doctor> yeah, we might want to introduce CI on CentOS 8 once this is all fixed
[15:58] <slyon> This has been in glib since 2018 times... so I'm not sure if I really want to have glib symbols defined in upstream netplan, just for backwards compatibility. Maybe it'd be better to add that patch to the rpm package locally?
[15:58] <slyon> It would be great to get CentOS 8 CI, though. (I want Debian, too, but didn't find the time to set that up, yet)
[15:59] <Eighth_Doctor> well, at least having CentOS 8 in CI will give decent compatibility coverage
[15:59] <slyon> ack
[16:03] <Eighth_Doctor> my recommendation is to use alternate names rather than keeping the glib names for compat functions
[16:03] <Eighth_Doctor> e.g. np_g_* rather than just g_*
[16:09] <slyon> yeah.. but then we'd need to differentiate between the two symbol names when calling the funciton... As I said, I'm not sure if id' want to include those glib functions inside netplan headers at all... :-/ I need to think about this a bit more.
[16:09] <slyon> gtg now