[Debian-ha-maintainers] [Linux-ha-dev] [patch v2 6/6] Debian: remove ldconfig from heartbeat.{postrm, postinst}

[Simon Horman]

On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 05:14:11PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 10:22:53AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:57:13PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:04:35AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > All other patches seem fine to me. Can you please push them.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > 
> > > > > Incidentally, Martin, is there a reason not to have debian
> > > > > directories upstream in glue and agents?
> > > > 
> > > > dev/debian seems to also have been removed.
> > > > I must say, I'd rather it hadn't been.
> > > 
> > > Martin (Madkiss) and I talked about this,
> > > and the conclusioin was to remove debian/* from upstream.
> > > 
> > > BTW,
> > >    please consider to go one changeset further than the 3.0.2 tag:
> > >    http://hg.linux-ha.org/heartbeat-STABLE_3_0/rev/70df28657107
> > >    You may need to add the dopd directory to the appropriate place
> > >    in the debian initscript and file lists.
> > 
> > I must be missing the point.
> > 
> > To me that seems to only highlight that packaging issues
> > are being handled in the tree. .spec files are being maintained
> > in the tree.
> > 
> > > So let's say, somehow you miss the "build from scratch",
> > > because you confuse Debian with Gentoo ;-)
> > > 
> > > If you really don't want the packages from
> > > http://people.debian.org/~madkiss/ha,
> > > but _insist_ to build them yourself,
> > 
> > I am one of the Debian maintainers for heartbeat.
> > I do build packages myself. And more importantly,
> > I do make updates to the files in debian/
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Removing the files is an interesting way to a resolve the lag.
> > Updating the files would be the approach that I would prefer.
> 
> I'm ok with that. My understanding was that "debian", who ever
> that is, preferred to track changes to debian themselves.
> 
> It seems this is at least slightly controversial,
> so sorry to not have discussed that in a wider audience.
> 
> If "debian" decides to track it in "hg.linux-ha.org",
> I'm very happy to put it back in.
> 
> > The thing is, that debian/ really needs to be maintained somewhere.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > And it was being maintained on ha.linux.org by Dejan, myself and others.
> 
> As Martin and I meed face to face every day, I took his opinion
> as representative for "debian".
> 
> > It was my assumption that Martin would continue with this practice.
> 
> That would be perfectly fine with me.
> 
> > An idea that Martin suggested on IRC is to have separate trees for
> > debian/. To be honest this is not my preferred option.  But it does address
> > my major concern, which is that the debian/ directories are no longer under
> > revision control. And it also seems to work for people worried about lag.
> > 
> > Dejan, would that work for you?
> > Martin, I'm assuming that you are still ok with this idea.
> > 
> > If so I think we should about getting
> > hg.linux-ha.org/debian/{agents,dev,glue,heartbeat-STABLE_3_0}
> > or something similar set up? Does anyone have any preferences
> > for the naming of the repositories?
> 
> Again, my apologies for not going to the list first.
> 
> For "comsumers", i.e. non-maintainers wanting to build
> the latest tip themselves, having debian/* in the
> upstream repositories would be more convenient.
> 
> But I'm have no preferences this way or an other.
> 
> This is my suggestion:
> "debian", please discuss this out, and then we put debian/* back with
> whatever content an location you agree uppon, and we tag that 3.0.3
> in two weeks time.
> 
> Is that Ok with everybody?

Yes, I agree that "debian" should work something out.
Sorry for spilling things into this forum.