Le 03/08/2017 à 19:29, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit : > 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 Yes a separate spec makes more sense. With the amount differences we have, it would be hellish to maintain a common spec file with redhat and most of the stuff would have to be done twice anyway. And yes, the RPM works with both SLE (12SP3), OpenSUSE Leap (>=42.2) and TumbleWeed without any issue. Nicolas -- 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
