Re: [RFCv2 00/15] RFCv2: Consolidated userspace RDMA library repo

[Jarod Wilson <jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:13:06PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:52:46PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:39:16AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:20:15AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > > On 8/23/2016 2:54 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:43:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >> The full install to / is still a small TODO, it is part and parcel
> > > > >> with doing the packaging, in my mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I just pushed a basic starting point rpm spec file, it still needs to
> > > > > be split into multiple subpackages, but it is installable with all the
> > > > > usual paths.
> > > > 
> > > > You can do that, but I routinely tell upstream maintainers that we don't
> > > > touch their spec files.  Every distro modifies the spec file so heavily
> > > > for their own custom installation that it just doesn't make much sense
> > > > to worry about it at the upstream level.  Build one that can be used
> > > > when running rpmbuild -ta and that's all you need.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure I understand your comment.
> > > 
> > > Are you saying we don't need a specfile in upstream?
> > 
> > Distros certainly don't require it.
> 
> I know that, my question is poised to the larger developer community
> who need to build test and deploy this stuff as not-a-distro.
> 
> > > How does upstream
> > > test the build infrastructure?
> > 
> > ./configure, make, make install (or cmake/ninja/whatever)
> 
> rpmbuild does stuff that needs to be checked out and validated by
> upstream at least occasionally, or packaging becomes too hard for the
> downstream because of broken build infra.

A good downstream ought to be reporting any issues they encounter, so I
think you can more or less offload that burden until such time as someone
comes and says "hey, you just broke xyz".

> > I either build locally in the git tree(s) and run from there, or I take
> > the upstream tarball and modify my distro spec file to use it.
> 
> We've never been able to run the rdma stack from the build trees, the
> dlopen stuff and the split packaging made it too hard. We can almost
> do it with the unified tree, but that is still a few patches away.. So
> that isn't a good answer for developers.

I usually rpmbuild and install libs, run various test apps, etc., from
local git tree builds (perftest, librdmacm utils/examples, etc).

> > Generally, no, because various upstreams often do things that violate the
> > packaging rules for a given distro. Upstream specs are occasionally used
> > for reference bringing up a new package, but at least for Red Hat
> > and
> 
> Well, that is exactly where we are right now, bringing up a new
> (complex) package.

I think the only really complex part is splitting it into sub-packages
correctly, which is mostly getting %files lists, Provides and Obsoletes
right, from the rpm perspective.

> Would you help making a spec file that is close to what you
> could use in the distro? I don't really care if it is stored in the
> package or stored inside RH, but we need to get one made.

Sure. It would probably be something to route through Fedora first though,
and I don't own all the packages this would encompass in Fedora, but could
certainly round a few people up and help out.

> > > Eg I think it was a dis-service to other distros not to update the
> > > reference verbs spec file with the libnl dependency. I wonder how many
> > > downstreams noticed this change and are still building verbs properly?
> > 
> > Add the dependency to the build infra, and problem solved for rpm, deb,
> > whatever other packaging system. Updating the spec only helps rpm-based
> > distros, maybe, if they use the spec (which RH/Fedora doesn't).
> 
> The build infra has an optional requirement for libnl3, and other
> things.
> 
> I don't know why we did that, maybe it should have been mandatory, but
> the point remains, it is a subtle change that is easy to miss
> downstream. Presumably downstream folks review changes to the tarball
> including the reference spec file before packaging a new version?

Downstream folks should be reviewing release notes at the very least, and
preferably, upstream source code management commit logs, to have a clue
what they're packaging up. I'm sure not all do though.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html