From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/15] RFCv2: Consolidated userspace RDMA library repo Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:42:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20160826154206.GK1916@redhat.com> References: <1471889618-1605-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <01dc01d1fcb0$a1dd3ed0$e597bc70$@opengridcomputing.com> <20160822214352.GB11695@obsidianresearch.com> <20160823185441.GA1233@obsidianresearch.com> <20160825173916.GC20612@obsidianresearch.com> <20160825195246.GI1916@redhat.com> <20160825201306.GA5421@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160825201306.GA5421-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Doug Ledford , Steve Wise , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, 'Devesh Sharma' , 'Hal Rosenstock' , 'Mike Marciniszyn' , 'Moni Shoua' , 'Sean Hefty' , 'Tatyana Nikolova' , 'Vladimir Sokolovsky' , 'Yishai Hadas' List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.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