On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:39:16AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:20:15AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > On 8/23/2016 2:54 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:43:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > >> The full install to / is still a small TODO, it is part and parcel > > >> with doing the packaging, in my mind. > > > > > > I just pushed a basic starting point rpm spec file, it still needs to > > > be split into multiple subpackages, but it is installable with all the > > > usual paths. > > > > You can do that, but I routinely tell upstream maintainers that we don't > > touch their spec files. Every distro modifies the spec file so heavily > > for their own custom installation that it just doesn't make much sense > > to worry about it at the upstream level. Build one that can be used > > when running rpmbuild -ta and that's all you need. > > I'm not sure I understand your comment. > > Are you saying we don't need a specfile in upstream? Distros certainly don't require it. > How does upstream > test the build infrastructure? ./configure, make, make install (or cmake/ninja/whatever) > Are you saying the simple one .rpm is all we need? Is that really > useful to developers if it clashes with the distro packaging? How do > we test the build system parts that help the package splitting? I either build locally in the git tree(s) and run from there, or I take the upstream tarball and modify my distro spec file to use it. > Isn't it easier for downstream to have recommended packaging to > reference? Generally, no, because various upstreams often do things that violate the packaging rules for a given distro. Upstream specs are occasionally used for reference bringing up a new package, but at least for Red Hat and Fedora, it's 100% of the time a distro-maintained spec file used, not the upstream one. Among other reasons, we add changelog entries when a package is rebuilt, often referencing a bugzilla number and what exactly was fixed, rather than just "update to new version" entries. These specs tend to get carried forward over time and releases, rather than throwing them out and replacing them with something from upstream. > Eg I think it was a dis-service to other distros not to update the > reference verbs spec file with the libnl dependency. I wonder how many > downstreams noticed this change and are still building verbs properly? Add the dependency to the build infra, and problem solved for rpm, deb, whatever other packaging system. Updating the spec only helps rpm-based distros, maybe, if they use the spec (which RH/Fedora doesn't). -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
