On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Nathan Cutler wrote: >> IMHO the first step should be to get rid of the evil submodule. Arguably >> the most direct path leading to this goal is to simply package up the >> downstream civetweb (i.e. 1.6 plus all the downstream patches) for all >> the supported distros. The resulting package would be Ceph-specific, >> obviously, so it could be called "civetweb-ceph". >> >> Like Ken says, the upstreaming effort can continue in parallel. > > I'm not sure I agree. As long as everything is not upstream and we are > running a fork, what is the value of having it in a separate package? > That just means all of the effort of managing the package dependency and > making sure it is in all of the appropriate distros (and similar pain for > those building manually) without any of the benefits (upstream bug fixes, > etc.). I think there's value in getting the packaging bits ready ahead of time and letting those "bake in" in Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian/SUSE while we continue to merge Ceph's civetweb changes to Civetweb upstream. Now that Civetweb with RGW is mainstream, I'm looking forward to eventually using a pre-built civetweb package that can shave time off our Ceph Gitbuilder/Jenkins runs :) - 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
