Hi Leon, Am Sonntag, den 07.05.2017, 09:43 +0300 schrieb Leon Romanovsky: > Hi Benjamin, > > It looks like, we fixed all outstanding reviews comments > for inclusion of rdma-core into Debian. > > How can we move forward and see rdma-core part of Debian? I found some time to continue the review of the source package merge. I finally reviewed all changes from the 11 source packages to rdma-core. The review is done except for the debian/copyright file regarding the upstream part (i.e. the copyright for all files outside of debian/). The resulting changes from the review can be found in the pull request https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/pull/128 Remaining topics to address: * review copyright (by me) * ibacm: Required-Start on openibd (see separate post) * rdma-ndd shipped by infiniband-diags and rdma-core (see separate post) * srp_daemon: Disallow all targets if not explicitly allowed by default (see separate post) * Can we upstream some redhat files, i.e. move them out of the redhat directory and maintain them in their corresponding code? Following files fall in this category: ** ibacm.service ** srp_daemon.service ** rdma service (see next point) * Can we provide an upstream rdma-core "package" that contains the rdma service and the following files from the redhat directory? ** rdma.conf ** rdma.kernel-init ** rdma.service ** rdma.udev-rules * Fix lintian issues: I: rdma-core: extended-description-is-probably-too-short I: iwpmd: extended-description-is-probably-too-short Patches for improved descriptions are welcome. W: iwpmd: init.d-script-missing-start etc/init.d/iwpmd 2 4 Any objections to add 2 and 4? I: srptools: init.d-script-does-not-implement-optional- option etc/init.d/srptools status I can write that if you decide not to consolidate the srp daemon (see bonus point below) W: ibverbs-providers: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libmlx5-1 I think we should just ignore this warning since using libmlx5-1 is just one part of ibverbs-providers that shouldn't be use alone, should it? W: ibverbs-providers: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink usr/lib/x86_64- linux-gnu/libmlx5.so.1.1.14 usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmlx5.so This libmlx5.so symlink should be part of a development package. Should I add a new binary libmlx5-dev package or should it be moved to libibverbs-dev (where already the header files are)? * Bonus points: consolidate the srp daemon. Debian ships a different service file than upstream, but I am against an additional layer introduced by srp_daemon.sh. It would also be nice to have a systemd service shipped by upstream (and not just in the redhat directory) Once these points are addressed (and in case I found no new stuff), I will upload the package to Debian experimental since Debian is in freeze. And no, we are months too late for Debian 9 (stretch). The packaging doesn't use the latest stuff to allow a no-change backport to Debian 8 and 9. -- Benjamin Drung System Developer Debian & Ubuntu Developer ProfitBricks GmbH Greifswalder Str. 207 D - 10405 Berlin Email: benjamin.drung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: https://www.profitbricks.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin. Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 125506B. Geschäftsführer: Achim Weiss.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
