Re: [meta-networking][PATCH] lldpd: Add recipe

[Joe MacDonald <Joe_MacDonald@mentor.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3044 bytes --]

Hi Otavio,

I see there's a new version to look at but this is the thread where the
discussion is happening that I want to continue, so here we go.  :-)

[Re: [oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] lldpd: Add recipe] On 15.09.15 (Tue 17:33) Otavio Salvador wrote:

> Hello Joe,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Joe MacDonald <Joe_MacDonald@mentor.com> wrote:
> > [[oe] [meta-networking][PATCH] lldpd: Add recipe] On 15.09.15 (Tue 14:54) Fabio Berton wrote:
> >
> >> From: Fabio Berton <fabio.berton@ossystems.com.br>
> >>
> >> lldpd is a 802.1AB implementation, a L2 network discovery protocol.
> >> It also supports CDP, EDP and various other protocols.
> >
> > I haven't looked at this in great detail yet, but it appears like it
> > would provide the same functionality as lldpad, already in
> > meta-networking:
> >
> > commit 6781f9b5dc60bbd39727aeaa74c13dd31eb73838
> > Author: Qian Lei <qianl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Date:   Thu Dec 11 17:36:20 2014 +0800
> >
> >     lldpad: Add new recipe
> >
> >     LLDPAD contains the Linux user space daemon and configuration tool for
> >     Intel LLDP Agent with Enhanced Ethernet support for the Data Center.
> >
> >     Signed-off-by: Qian Lei <qianl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
> >
> > I've no objection to carrying two different implementations,
> > particularly if one is more complete than the other or if one is more
> > actively developed, but I do have a couple of requests for you given
> > that you're the second one on the scene.
> 
> It seems the lldpd is way more actively maintained. We have a customer
> using this in an environment with some thousands of network devices
> with great success and we wished to upstream the recipe and avoid
> maintaining a closed recipe for no reason.

I'm good with that.  Coming from a carrier background I know that
frequent updates does not necessarily mean more stable, but actively
developed with real-world users is convincing enough for me to merge
this.

> >    - Can you update your recipe (and the other, if necessary) to provide
> >      an appropriate PROVIDES / CONFLICTS variable?
> 
> I am not sure we should. Being two alternatives nothing blocks someone
> to install both.

I thought about that, but the question in my mind is does it make sense
to install both?  If they both tried to start up at boot via
initscripts/systemd, would they conflict with each other or do they
manage that gracefully?  I really don't know.

> To be honest, maybe this one could replace the old one for
> meta-network future users, if Qian Lei agrees.

I'd really like that, if it turns out lldpad is a reasonable subset of
lldpd functionality.

Either way I'll take a look at the latest patch set and if there's
anything specific in there I have to comment on, I will, otherwise we'll
give everyone else on the list a bit of time to respond and then make a
call about the specifics of merging this.

-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]