[pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] [Debian] Re: Eucalyptus 2.0.3 build

[Neil Soman]

Greetings Steffen/all!

Rudy, the debian directory here:
svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-eucalyptus/eucalyptus/trunk is the one used
for rolling 2.0.0 packages and not 1.6.2. It *should* work with the
2.0.3 source. The one in the 2.0.3 source tree with the 1.6.2
changelog entry is not used and should be removed.

The ones we use on our end to roll Debian packages is slightly more up
to date but the above should work. Regardless, I would like to push
our latest. I'm not sure I am allowed to push to pkg-eucalyptus. I'm
attaching a tarball of what we have on our end. Let me know if that
helps.

Thanks for your help!
neil

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Neil,
> On 06/08/2011 08:33 AM, graziano obertelli wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:44AM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2011 04:35 AM, Rudy Godoy Guillén wrote:
>>>> Hello, I'm subscribed finally. I'm currently the guy working for GSoC
>>>> project: Compute clusters integration for Debian development. Which means
>>>> using Eucalyptus for cross-building.
>>>>
>>>> Over the weekend I've sucessfully built the Eucalyptus 2.0.3 offline version
>>>> from upstream. Although I haven't checked the debian-related patches you
>>>> could have done (cdn.d.n appears down), I observed many issues that might
>>>> need some work.
>>>>
>>>> I have some comments:
>>>> - Do you guys have set a repo for the packaging bits?
>>> There is the pkg-eucalyptus subversion repository. The one on
>>> pkg-escience is outdated and the git one that Charles I recall to have
>>> created was never adopted, really. Correct me if I am wrong ....
>>> The packages we can IMHO directly upload to unstable - we should just
>>> submit some bug to it that prevents its migration to testing for the
>>> start. Once that is up, let me then upload a version to
>>> backports.debian.org.
>>>> - How will be versions handled, upstream says it's 2.0.3 but the changelog
>>>> isn't updated accordingly, so the resulting binaries are versioned 1.6.2.
>>> Uuuuuuuuh, please adjust the changelog, then :)
>> neil is the authoritative answer here, but I think that what is in our
>> sources is actually obsolete, and not currently used. Before working on
>> those you may want to wait for him to confirm that we want to work off
>> those.
> I am not sure about who is subscribed to the pkg-eucalyptus mailing
> list. So I just explicitly added Rudy and yourself to the CC. Rudy has
> basically two tasks at hand
> a) allow Eucalyptus to start ARM images
> b) update the Debian packaging.
> For a), I had felt that the exact version of the source may not be too
> important, it should just not be too much off from what you are using.
> To have b) would help the development of a), and it all may have gotten
> some extra value for you since the last weeks. And indeed, with stronger
> differences in the source tree, this should better be started all on the
> right versions from the start.
>
> I very much thank Graziano for his warning. Neil, is there something you
> can help directing us to?
>
> Many thanks and regards,
>
> Steffen
>
>



-- 
Neil Soman
Co-founder, Director of Release Engineering | Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
| eucalyptus.com | 805-845-8000
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkg-eucalyptus-debian-2.0.0.tgz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 15238 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers/attachments/20110614/0569030d/attachment-0001.bin>