[Openib-windows] Branding

[Fab Tillier]

> From: Yossi Leybovich [mailto:sleybo at mellanox.co.il]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:12 AM
> 
> > From: Fab Tillier [mailto:ftillier at silverstorm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:10 AM
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I just checked in changes to brand the binaries created when
> > building this code as OpenIB binaries rather than any
> > particular vendor.
>
> As I recall we agreed on COPMANY_NAME environment variable that by default
> will change to be "OpenIB".
> (I also sent you patch that do that for wsd installer.)
> After we agreed that each company will need to maintain its own inf files, why
> not to let each company that would like supply binaries to give it own
> version,company name and product name.

Customers don't want vendor provided binaries for the core components - there's
no way to tell if vendor X's release is compatible with Vendor Y, even if they
both claim that their binaries are OpenIB code.  The core in this case is at a
minimum the access layer, the HCA drivers, IPoIB, SRP, and WSD.  OpenSM probably
belongs in there too, but that's up to Mellanox to make that call.
 
I am going to build binaries and post them on the windows.openib.org web server
for anyone to use, with the expectation that all vendors will package these up
in their releases.  See the email I sent last week after the OpenIB board
meeting when the board agreed this was a good idea.

Since the core binaries will have the SVN repository version information, it
will be easy for customers to identify any interoperability issues they might
encounter.

Lastly, if you do want a vendor branded solution, you can modify the versioning
file in your repository - presumably you also have other changes you haven't put
back into the SVN repository, so you're already managing two trees that are out
of sync.  If the trees are in sync, what are you gaining by applying your own
version information aside from confusing the customer?

> > This affected any component that used to
> > include ics_ver.h, which has been renamed oib_ver.h and picks
> > up the SVN revision through the VER_OPENIB environment
> > variable (which must be set or build will fail).
>
> Why not to let companies to decide on their version calling mechanism and keep
> default to the OpenIB.
> I would prefer to see 4 numbers with environment variables, 3 numbers are the
> release number (i.e. 1.2.0 ) and the last one is the SVN number

You can version your private binaries however you like - there's nothing
preventing you from having your own version numbers, company, and product names
in your private repository.  However, they will not be official OpenIB binaries
if you do so.

- Fab