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

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1662 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:00:09AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:29:18AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> > I'm doing that by running number of one liners [1], it builds me
> > development setup in shared folder, so my base image is continuing
> > to be clean.
>
> Yes, I've done this approach as well, I actually have a script some
> place that kinda automates it. This is not nearly as easy to do as a
> single tree inplace build, and requires some expertise to setup.
>
> You'd be less happy if you scaled it to all our trees..
>
> > > Doug is also adressing a larger issue with packaging and getting
> > > everything to build correctly as the distro - he talked about it here:
> > >
> > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg37855.html
> >
> > I read that thread and think that it is related to unoptimized build
> > process of one distro who for any reason decided do not use repo tool
> > [2] for managing complex build dependencies between different git trees,
> > but used excel file and manual download of source tarballs.
>
> Do not underestimate how hard a job the distro people have.

Everyone works hard, especially they, and the question is do the distro
people want to revise their process. The change of upstream process to
suit their needs is a nice solution, but it needs to be beneficial to
everyone. Current proposal is not good to vendors, who are responsible
for upstreaming their work.

>
> > RDMA stack in that specific distro and no need to invent new beast
> > (rdma-plumbers).
>
> Progress, Leon!

I disagree that removing old, unsupported libraries from the graves is
called progress.

>
> Jason

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]