[pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] [Debian] Updating euca2ools to 1.3.1 ?

[Rudy Godoy Guillén]

Hello, I'm on the list too.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller at gmx.de>wrote:

> Dear Neil, dear Charles,
>
> Firstly, thank you both for bringing the euca2ools up again.  I am also
> CCing
> Rudy, who has new packages of Eucalyptus 2.x under his fingers. For him I
> am also leaving all the text in, inlining just a bit below.
>
> On 07/01/2011 02:29 AM, Neil Soman wrote:
> > Greetings Charles,
> >
> > please see inline.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org>
> wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> perhaps it is time to update euca2ools to 1.3.1 in Debian.  Among the
> points
> >> that made me postpone this work, there is the large set of patches
> applied on
> >> the Ubuntu package, that are not used by Eucalyptus to update euca2ools
> on
> >> http://open.eucalyptus.com/downloads.  I do not have a good enough
> knowledge of
> >> euca2ools to review these patches, and as a general philosophy in
> Debian, I do
> >> not apply patches blindly.  Perhaps some of you remember the « OpenSSL
> >> incident » (DSA-1571-1), that affected only Debian because of a local
> patch.
> >>
> >> So I have two questions.
> >>
> >> First, if I upgraded Debian's package to version 1.3.1, would it cause
> >> significant difficulties to the current users of the package.  In
> particular,
> >> we need to pay attention that at the next Debian stable release, in 2012
> or
> >> 2013, the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3.1 must be supported and as automatic
> as
> >> possible.
> > This I can't answer directly, but I know that 1.3.1 includes a number
> > of useful fixes over 1.2 and we recommend all users upgrade to that.
> > On that note, we provide a package for squeeze at
> >
> > http://open.eucalyptus.com/downloads.
> >
> > This is based off of this code:
> >
> https://code.launchpad.net/~eucalyptus-maintainers/euca2ools/euca2ools-1.3-lp
> >
> > I am not sure if the above code base includes all of the changes that
> > Ubuntu developers have made. The above package is what most of our
> > Debian users seem to be using.
> In an ideal world, you would not want to have your own repository at
> http://open.eucalyptus.com/downloads and use Debian's resources,
> instead. And Debian and Ubuntu would be synchronised. We are apparently
> fairly far from that. If there is anything coming to your mind on how to
> improve that situation - tell us, please.
>

Yes, that would be the best approach. The Ubuntu guys have moved forward
themselves so the first thing to do is integrate their work and later to
talk to them.

I'm committing some packaging changes today. However, there's one small
thing (axis2 java implementation) that needs to be resolved.
When the package configures there's a script that calls a wrapper that
generates stubs and uses axis2 java implementation, which doesn't have a
package available. If it can't find it the build fails. I've been using the
one provided by -src-deps tarball from Eucalyptus. But we'll have to
discuss. I yet have to check Ubuntu packaging.


> >> Second, how critical are the patches appliend in Ubuntu and is there any
> plan
> >> at Eucalyptus to apply or cherry-pick some of them to make a 1.3.2
> update ?  Or
> >> are these patches very Ubuntu-specific ?
> > As far as going forward, we have already picked up most of these (and
> > fixed the ones that were distro specific), but haven't pushed out a
> > new version. The plan is to release euca2ools 1.4 (I assume that is
> > what it will be called) along with Eucalyptus 3.x in a few months (by
> > the end of the year at the latest).
> >
> > That will be based off of this code base, which is the current
> > development branch:
> >
> https://code.launchpad.net/~eucalyptus-maintainers/euca2ools/euca2ools-main
> Historically this is what we always did, right? We took it from the
> trunk IIRC.
> > Hope that helps.
> In my mind, and from what I read in Charles eMail he might concur, the
> Debian package should look exactly the way you want it to look. Debian
> does not do extra development and if it does, it goes through the hands
> of upstream. That is why Charles did not just apply the patches from
> Ubuntu.
>
> What would be the version number of your development branch? Is it
> 1.3.99.bzr.`date`? Or is it too early to call it anyway near 1.4? And, we
> need some better maintenance on the Debian side of the package. I am
> just not using clouds that much myself these days, I must admit.
>
>
I've a copy of the packaging from the upstream side. I guess it would be
better if Eucalyptus integrates our packaging into the upstream tarball,
once we consolidate them, so others can modify according their needs. One
thing that could be really useful on this side is migrating the package to
deb3 format. I did some tests on that front, but I see it as a long-term
goal.

regards

-- 
Rudy Godoy
http://stone-head.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers/attachments/20110718/9d968f02/attachment.html>