[Pkg-ofed-devel] New sources for RDMA upstream

[Doug Ledford]

On 9/18/2016 12:55 PM, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> I'm sorry your email got rejected in pkg-ofed-devel at l.a.d.o, I had to make
> posting allowed only to subscribers a few weeks ago due to spam :(

Yeah....I'm getting ready to tighten up the spam blocking features on my
mail server...

> I whitelisted you and bounced your email to the list so the discussion
> is properly archived.

Thanks.

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 08:33:27PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 9/14/2016 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:06:34AM +0200, Ana Guerrero Lopez wrote:
>>>> While the Debian OFED team is mainly me,
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, if you are packaging up upstream, why do you call
>> your group the OFED packaging group?  OFED is a specific group of
>> packages, and not the upstream ones.
> 
> That's a fair question. This is purely because historical reasons, when
> the team was created years ago, the team founders wanted to package the OFED
> released (IIRC OFED 1.4 at the time) and they named the packaging group
> in Alioth (Debian's forge) "pkg-ofed" https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-ofed/
> 
> When I took over, making a new group didn't seem very worthwhile and it had
> the potential to alienate existing people if I created a new group and moved
> everything somewhere else. When I said OFED team I meant the team pkg-ofed
> in Alioth.

We had similar issues in Red Hat.  I used a major release (rhel5 to
rhel6 update) to drop the openib name from all packages and switch to
pure upstream instead of OFED (OFED was the openib software stack first
and our name reflected that).

> With the sources split, I could care only about some parts of it, as
> I do now that's what I said I would have to split to maintain it.

Gotcha.  This makes sense, and you're right, putting it all together
when it includes stuff that isn't currently in Debian does increase the
maintenance load.

> I hope this makes my point clear.

It does.  I obviously use other software so this issue doesn't directly
effect me, but as you mention in your other email that you will be
stepping back from maintenance of the RDMA stack in Debian, allow me,
one Fedora package maintainer to a fellow Debian package maintainer, to
wish you well and say thanks for all you've done ;-).

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford at redhat.com>
    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ofed-devel/attachments/20160918/12fa81c0/attachment.sig>