What about the support for FNP on RHEL 9? According to the release notes, 11.19.1.0 is supported on RHEL 7 and 8 only.
We're just switching to RHEL 9. In my understanding, the Linux Standard Base (redhat-lsb-core) is no longer supported with RHEL 9, but this is essential for FNP?
Hi @pdl_stsrd_liceIs there a plan to support FNP on RHEL 9.X? Yes there is planning to introduce the support for RHEL 9.x however it's yet to update in the Roadmap. Let me check the current status and update you as soon as possible.
@pdl_stsrd_lice As per my check with the concerned team RHEL 9.x support is tentatively planning for 2022 R3 which is an upcoming release of FNP (if all the testing going well and good). Hope this answer your query.
Do you know whether the upcoming release will remove the mentioned LSB requirement? If not we'd start to investigate on how to enable the support for LSB on RHEL 9 (if possible at all).
'apt' is the Centos package manager, not the Fedora one. RHEL uses 'yum'. However, on RHEL9:
# yum install lsb
Updating Subscription Management repositories.
Last metadata expiration check: 1:36:47 ago on Mon 22 Aug 2022 10:05:31 PM EDT.
No match for argument: lsb
Error: Unable to find a match: lsb
That does not work , neither does redhat-lsb-core.
# dnf install lsb-core
Updating Subscription Management repositories.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:37:56 ago on Tue 23 Aug 2022 06:00:42 AM EDT.
No match for argument: lsb-core
Error: Unable to find a match: lsb-core
# dnf install redhat-lsb-core
Updating Subscription Management repositories.
Last metadata expiration check: 2:39:08 ago on Tue 23 Aug 2022 06:00:42 AM EDT.
No match for argument: redhat-lsb-core
Error: Unable to find a match: redhat-lsb-core
It seems to me that my only option is to wait for FNP 2022R3. Is RH9 support still planned for that release? Is there any indication of a release date yet?
FNP still requires LSB, but RedHat dropped LSB. There's the "--nolsb" option to install_fnp.sh. This will "fake" the existence of the missing LSB interpreter. I've also successfully tried to directly use another interpreter via "patchelf --set-interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 lmutil". Should have the same effect. As said, but both approaches somehow fake LSB, it's still not there. I don't have any information yet, whether there are further LSB requirements of FNP and we've not yet done a full test.
The above suggestion is an awful hack. It may work on locally installed machines, but is not a viable solution for ISVs who need to ship installation packages (RPMs).
In our case, we bundle pre-compiled FNP code with our application, along with a list of package dependencies. Having the installation package hack soft links into our end-users' /lib64 directories violates all sorts of RPM standards and will probably result in RH refusing to certify our application as RH9 compatible.
Could I suggest that instead of requiring LSB, you list the standard libraries that are required by FNP, so that these can be included in our RPM dependency list.
Hi @is_ppllc This is a quick workaround however the plan is to remove the lsb dependency and add some alternatives in future releases of FNP, as of now I don't have more details however we will keep you posted in the release notes with all the details once we completed all the development and testing.
