On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:52:46PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > 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. I know that, my question is poised to the larger developer community who need to build test and deploy this stuff as not-a-distro. > > How does upstream > > test the build infrastructure? > > ./configure, make, make install (or cmake/ninja/whatever) rpmbuild does stuff that needs to be checked out and validated by upstream at least occasionally, or packaging becomes too hard for the downstream because of broken build infra. > 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. We've never been able to run the rdma stack from the build trees, the dlopen stuff and the split packaging made it too hard. We can almost do it with the unified tree, but that is still a few patches away.. So that isn't a good answer for developers. > 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 Well, that is exactly where we are right now, bringing up a new (complex) package. Would you help making a spec file that is close to what you could use in the distro? I don't really care if it is stored in the package or stored inside RH, but we need to get one made. > > 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). The build infra has an optional requirement for libnl3, and other things. I don't know why we did that, maybe it should have been mandatory, but the point remains, it is a subtle change that is easy to miss downstream. Presumably downstream folks review changes to the tarball including the reference spec file before packaging a new version? Jason -- 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
