Hi Laszlo! On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote: > Hi all parties, > > Ceph is packaged at three places: in Ubuntu, at upstream and in Debian. > Its first 'stable' release, 0.48 is coming. At least as Sage wrote some > days ago: "It looks like 0.48 will also be the basis for one of our > first 'stable' releases.". > > Hereby I would like to sync our Debian related packaging efforts, not > only for the mentioned stable release. The OpenStack packaging team > would like to add Ceph to their stack. Howtos, helping hands on forums > needs it as well. > I'm not subscribed to the lists, please keep me in the loop with Cc-s. > > First patch, 0002-Add-support-PPC.patch is for upstream. Would help the > in tree leveldb to build on PowerPC architectures as well. > Second patch reflect the homepage and git tree changes for Ubuntu. > Third patch is from them, noted as "Switch from libcryptopp to libnss as > libcryptopp is not seeded.". So libnss3-dev is used as build-dependency > instead. Sage, would you commit it? I haven't looked closely yet, but these should be fine. > I've separated gceph out, if someone needs the CLI only, then s/he can > do that without the GTK+ libraries. See below. gceph is already gone from the 'next' branch. > Ben, James, can you please share in some sentences why ceph-fuse is > dropped in Ubuntu? Do you need it Sage? If it's feasible, you may drop > that as well. We could package it separately, if necessary, but it should be packaged. > As I see, you still ship d/librgw1.install , d/librgw1.postrm , > d/librgw1.postinst and librgw-dev.install . They are not needed anymore. These are already gone from the 'next' branch as well. > Maybe the biggest change is that ceph-mds was separated out and such, > ceph-fs-common created for cephfs and mount.ceph. We can do this as well, but I would prefer not to. Opinions? > Please move the configure call to its target, as you can check in git. > Add var/lib/ceph/mon , var/lib/ceph/osd and var/lib/ceph/mds to > d/ceph.dirs . This should be done in 'next'. > git patch is for Sage, upstream and contains what needed for the new > packages. May I get commit rights to debian/ or should I go with git > forks and you'll merge the changes? Patches or a git merge request are best as they allow for review. Thanks, Laszlo! Looking forward to seeing this in wheezy, and easing the burden on you and the Ubuntu guys. sage > Also it seems that limit the architectures to build on is not > allowed[1]. I'll write an email to this issue, how to go with failing > leveldb build-dependency on some archs. > > Loic, do you need anything or do you have any objections with these > changes? > > Regards, > Laszlo/GCS > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677626 > -- 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
