On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote: > Hi Sage, > > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 11:56 -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > > Colin separated out the gui from the 'ceph' binary (it's gceph) in the > > unstable branch of git, which means we can break it into a separate > > package and eliminate all the gtk dependencies for the other stuff. > Yes, I've seen that, which was a very good decision. ceph is for every > kind of machines, mostly servers. There's no need other binaries (GTK+ > or others) that not strictly necessary to operate a service. They occupy > space and may expose security problems. On the other hand, I don't like > running GUIs when I'm on a slow connection (maybe just to fix a config > file from a PDA). > > > Maybe a ceph-gui, recommended by ceph? > It's up to you how to name it. As for the rule of thumb, packages named > after the binary they contain. So it should be gceph, but can be > ceph-gui if you want. I'm inclined to rename gceph to ceph-gui, actually, unless anyone has any strong opinions about it... > I was a bit lazy to check out, is ceph mandatory for using gceph? As > I've seen no, the logic remained in ceph.cc , the command line and gui > tool went to cmd.cc and gceph.cc respectively. > The question is, when do you want to merge these changes to rc? There > are unstable and gceph trees available, but are they for v0.24 or not? The binary is standalone. They should just recommend each other, I think. And this is all in the unstable branch (for v0.25), so we can just change it there. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
