Hi Laszlo, I've take a closer look at these patches, and have a few questions. - The URL change and nss patches I've applied; they are in the ceph.git 'debian' branch. - Has the leveldb patch been sent upstream? Once it is committed to the upstream git, we can update ceph to use it; that's nicer than carrying the patch. However, I thought you needed to link against the existing libleveldb1 package... which means we shouldn't do anything on our side, right? - I'm not sure how useful it is to break mount.ceph and cephfs into a separate ceph-fs-common package, but we can do it. Same goes for a separate package for ceph-mds. That was originally motivated by ubuntu not wanting the mds in main, but in the end only the libraries went in, so it's a moot point. I'd rather hear from them what their intentions are for 12.10 before complicating things... - That same patch also switched all the Architecture: lines back to linux-any. Was that intentional? I just changed them from that last week. - I did apply the python-ceph Depends: portion of that patch. The result so far is in the 'debian' branch of ceph.git. Please take a look. Thanks! sage 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've separated gceph out, if someone needs the CLI only, then s/he can > do that without the GTK+ libraries. See below. > > 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. > As I see, you still ship d/librgw1.install , d/librgw1.postrm , > d/librgw1.postinst and librgw-dev.install . They are not needed anymore. > Maybe the biggest change is that ceph-mds was separated out and such, > ceph-fs-common created for cephfs and mount.ceph . > 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 . > > 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? > > 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
