On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:14:11PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:59 +0200, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: > > We have a different spec file due to SUSE packaging policies, and some > > path differences but the default one works. As this is new, I wanted to > > make sure it works well before submitting it. With v15 coming out and the > > associated systemd/udev changes, I'll have to update the spec and validate > > it but once this is done I'll send a patch to this ML and get it upstreamed. > > Hello Nicolas, > > Do you plan to submit an entirely new RPM or changes to the rdma-core.spec > file in the top-level directory? Personally I strongly prefer the latter. We > have already three groups of distro packaging files and that is really annoying > to rdma-core contributors because every packaging change has to be tested three > times (rdma-core.spec, redhat/rdma-core.spec and debian/*.install). Adding a > fourth packaging file would increase the maintenance burden even further. If suse contributes their spec file I think we could delete the top level rdma-core.spec There are enough differences in the suse spec file I suspect it would be more maintainable to have it separate. We still have to test the builds against that configuration anyhow, I dont see a big burden there - so long as cbuild can run an appropriate suse build (opensuse is OK for testing?).. 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
