Distribution packaging? (was: [ewg] Re: [ANNOUNCE] librdmacm release 1.0.7)
Roland Dreier
rdreier at cisco.com
Tue Apr 1 14:37:04 PDT 2008
By the way, the current status of my Debian and Fedora packaging efforts
for userspace code that I use is the following:
libibverbs:
libmthca:
libmlx4:
librdmacm:
Up-to-date packages included in Debian and Fedora.
libipathverbs:
I have Debian packaging prepared and I will probably submit it
for inclusion in Debian soon. The spec file looks like it would
only need minor changes for Fedora inclusion and if I have spare
time I may work on getting it into Fedora (I use Debian for
development but I'm not a Fedora user so my motivation for
working on Fedora packages is not that great).
libcxgb3:
Current tarball release (1.1.4) is a snapshot of the raw
development tree, not the output of "make dist". This makes
packaging ugly. I have Debian packaging ready and the spec file
looks clse to what is needed for Fedora, so once a good release
appears it shouldn't be too hard to get into distributions.
libnes:
No tarball release available. Same implication as libcxgb3: I
have Debian packages ready to go once a good release appears,
and the spec file probably wouldn't need too much work.
Do other people find this work useful? I personally really like being
able to install a new system and get up-to-date userspace packages
without having to mess around with OFED or building by hand, and of
course being able to do "aptitude upgrade" to update the versions on a
system is very nice.
If there is value to this, then it would be nice if I could get
"official" releases made with "make dist" from the libcxgb3 and libnes
maintainers -- this makes the job of getting packages into the upstream
distribution much simpler.
Also, since I am not much of a Fedora person, I wouldn't mind if other
people claimed the job of getting packages into Fedora. There is
excellent step-by-step documentation at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
- R.
More information about the ewg
mailing list