On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:58:07 -0700 > Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> We should definitely do it. We're based off civetweb 1.6, and there >> was no official civetweb version for quite a while, but 1.7 was tagged >> a few months ago. I made some effort and got most of our material >> changes upstream, however, there are some changes that might need some >> more work before we can get them merged, or might not make complete >> sense at all. > > I take it Nathan is volunteering to parse the delta into logical pieces > and identify what upstream is willing to accept, right? > > Dunno about SuSE, but as a Fedora packager I would prefer if we (Ceph) > talked upstream into making regular releases and then for us to stop > carrying it entirely. One less git submodule if nothing else. I would heartily support the effort to get civetweb into the distros, too, and make this a proper package with a shared library that RGW can link against. This can be done in parallel to the "reconciling the code content with civetweb upstream" effort of course :) - Ken -- 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
