[Pkg-xen-devel] Contacting upstream

[Jeremy T. Bouse]

    I think both of these items are good ones to address that would
hopefully be gladly accepted upstream. The /etc/sysconfig path is RedHat
specific and isn't even within the FHS if I'm not mistaken so we
absolutely have to patch as packages are supposed to follow it. The = vs
?= may have simply been overlooked.

    The only other thing might be the kernel patching but we can deal
with that at a later time.

Guido Trotter wrote:

>Hi,
>
>during the week I was thinking to send an email to the upstream development list
>to see if, at some point in the future, we might have the changes needed for us
>not to patch their package, or to reduce our patches even more...
>
>The points I was going to touch were:
>
>/etc/sysconfig:
>	We'd like, if it's possible, to have this be configurable at build
>	time... The default can remain like it is now, so no one gets confused,
>	but on the other hand we remove 10sysconfig.dpatch. This can probably be
>	efficiently done by making the path a parameter, calling the source file
>	xendomains.in and then processing it to produce the official xendomains
>	substituting the path with the provided one.
>
>LIBDIR:
>	I guess we could do away with our patch if they accept to change their
>	Config.mk from:
>
>		ifeq ($(XEN_TARGET_ARCH),x86_64)
>		LIBDIR = lib64
>		else
>		LIBDIR = lib
>		endif
>
>	to:
>
>		ifeq ($(XEN_TARGET_ARCH),x86_64)
>		LIBDIR ?= lib64
>		else
>		LIBDIR ?= lib
>		endif
>
>	Which shoudln't change anything for them and lets us pass the LIBDIR= parameter to make and remove our 20lib64.dpatch.
>
>Any other points we might want to touch, while we're at it?
>
>Guido
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pkg-xen-devel mailing list
>Pkg-xen-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xen-devel
>
>  
>