From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Cutler Subject: Re: ceph / rocksdb Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:21:39 +0100 Message-ID: <56CF6253.7020300@suse.cz> References: <20160224060546.GC6585@degu.b.linuxbox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47615 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933600AbcBYUVm (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:21:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ken Dreyer Cc: ceph-devel On 02/24/2016 06:58 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I'm really interested in getting our various bundled libraries into > separate packages. +1 ! > Does ceph's rocksdb have a lot of changes from rocksdb upstream? If > so, I'm leaning towards packaging this as "ceph-rocksdb" until those > changes are present in an upstream rocksdb release. How about "rocksdb-ceph" for the name? To me the first component (rocksdb) expresses what the package *is* (i.e. what you get when you install it) and the second component (ceph) expresses the "flavor". And does this mean I now have a green light for "civetweb-ceph"? ;-) All the submodules should be separate packages IMO. Also the tool "ceph-detect-init" seems like it deserves an independent existence. -- Nathan Cutler Software Engineer Distributed Storage SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. Tel.: +420 284 084 037