On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:07:05PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:45:06PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libcxgb3-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libcxgb4-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libhfi1-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libi40iw-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libipathverbs-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libmlx4-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libmlx5-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libmthca-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libnes-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libocrdma-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > > > Wrote: /home/jwilson/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/librxe-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
> > >
> > > Does this mean RH is not going to do a single package for the
> > > providers? You know another 5 or so are coming..
> >
> > Putting all the providers in a single sub-package is certainly something
> > we could do. With rpm virtual Provides and Obsoletes, we could make the
> > upgrade path transparent to at least yum/dnf/rpm, but it might still
> > confuse people who go looking for the same package they've always had
> > installed, so it could be something we do in Fedora and the next RHEL
> > major release, rather than in a current RHEL minor update.
>
> I would strongly encoruage this - the current scheme is silly, you
> need to know to look for the right provider to get things working
> (which is very much unlike the way the kernel modules work).
>
> Suggest to dump the providers in libiverbs or add a ibverbs-providers
> package..
I'm playing with a setup where libibverbs includes all the providers now.
I think I like it. It'd require some documentation to explain where libfoo
went, but it doesn't look too bad:
$ sudo rpm -Uvh libibverbs-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm libibverbs-utils-11-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
Preparing... ################################# [100%]
Updating / installing...
1:libibverbs-11-1.el7 ################################# [ 14%]
2:libibverbs-utils-11-1.el7 ################################# [ 29%]
Cleaning up / removing...
3:libibverbs-utils-1.2.1-1.el7 ################################# [ 43%]
4:libi40iw-0.5.227-2.el7 ################################# [ 57%]
5:libocrdma-1.0.8-1.el7 ################################# [ 71%]
6:libmlx5-1.2.1-8.el7 ################################# [ 86%]
7:libibverbs-1.2.1-1.el7 ################################# [100%]
Seems I have the Provides/Obsoletes correct at least. This also eliminates
the somewhat gross libibverbs-driver Provides from each driver and the
matching Requires in libibverbs-utils, which I like...
Doug, any thoughts from you on this front?
> > > > +install -D -m0644 Documentation/{ibacm,ibsrpdm,libibcm,libibverbs,librdmacm,rxe}.md %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
> > > > +install -D -m0644 README.md %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
> > >
> > > I guess README should go in that patch I sent you..
> >
> > D'oh, yeah, I'll mix that in here locally.
>
> I think you can just add ../README.md to the
> Documentation/CMakeFile.txt
First cut, I added a Files line to the root CMakeLists.txt. Would the
above be preferred over that? Both seem to work.
> > > > +%{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/ib_acme -D . -O
> > > > +# Fixup a multilib conflict in ibacm_opts.cfg:
> > > > +sed -i -e '/^# Specifies the directory of the provider libraries$/ a\
> > > > +# Use /usr/lib64/ibacm on 64bit, /usr/lib/libacm on 32bit.
> > > > +' -e 's%^\(# provider_lib_path
> > > > /usr/\)lib\(64\)\?/ibacm$%\1lib64/ibacm%' ibacm_opts.cfg
> > >
> > > Hum? I'm pretty sure this is basically fixed in the code now, was done here
> > > 5eebdb9baaaae420a4bb16e586a96807823916a0
> > >
> > > Adjusting the comment like that doesn't really make sense, the acm
> > > daemon has a fixed endianness and looks in a single place to load the
> > > plugin. If someone wants to use 32 bit plugins they have to install
> > > the 32 bit acm daemon, which would have the 32 bit path in the sample
> > > conf file...
> >
> > This was just copy and paste from our existing libacm spec, might well be
> > something that was fixed and I just missed it.
>
> It looks OK as-is to me, I'd drop it now.
Dropped, things do look fine w/o that.
> > They weren't getting installed, so I threw that hack in, meant to
> > actually say something about that, got lost in the shuffle. I'll
> > double-check if they're still not getting installed... Okay, they're
> > getting installed now. May have just been a transient error with an
> > earlier tarball, or something else I did wrong. I'll drop that bit.
>
> How strange.. FWIW, the tarball should be built with git-archive ..
There was a ton of churn from what I was doing, I blame me. ;) All good
now, and yes, creating tarballs with git archive:
$ git archive --prefix=rdma-core-11/ -o ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/rdma-core-11.tgz --format tar.gz HEAD
--
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
