On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:17:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > > I'm one of package maintainers of rdma-core. There is a patch > > applied without any maintainers' review/approve. I had sent two emails > > to patch committer to ask him/her to push the change to upstream. > > But never get response. > > So someone pinged me on IRC about this, I never saw the emails because > you replied to the git commit and I auto archive/mute all those emails > because I get a LOT of them. You never tried other communication > mechanisms that I'm aware of such are IRC. > > Also note there is no packaging requirements to get approval from > package maintainers. > > > The patch maybe useful or fix something. But the divergence between > > upstream and Fedora rawhide is what I don't want to see, because > > such divergence is source of regression issues. > > The addition of libpcap linking against libibverbs pulled in a whole > of extra dependencies that aren't used by Workstation/Cloud or > anything that doesn't have infinband. So this just splits it out to a > smaller package, for a IB user they will see nothing different. Split the package make sense. But you create a new sub-package with name "libibverbs-core". I don't agree with the new name. The original libibverbs package only includes the VERBs API library. https://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/libibverbs/ In 2016, user-space drivers/providers, such as libmlx4, had been merged libibverbs. We may should keep libibverbs only includes the VERBs API library. And create a new sub-package as "libibverbs-providers". I will discuss this with upstream. > I don't see how a spec file change is a "regression", there's nothing RHEL rdma-core builds are based on Fedora builds. Each time, when update upstream rdma-core for RHEL, I will pull changes from Fedora repo if such changes should be applied for RHEL too. The divergence between Fedora and upstream makes my work complicated. I just checked RHEL-9 nightly build, the libibverbs-core package already in RHEL-9. I will have to handle this for RHEL-9. > that will regress here, the rdma-core depends on the package and if > anyone installs that they also get the new sub package, but if the > general user doesn't have IB hardware, which is the vast majority of > users even in the enterprise, they don't have to unnecessarily have > extra stuff clogging up their system. > > In terms of "upstream" I'm not sure what you mean there, because https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/blob/master/redhat/rdma-core.spec It is the "upstream" spec file. > upstream of Fedora is generally tar files but do feel free to push the > change upstream if you prefer that for managing stuff. I will work with upstream to split the libibverbs package. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
