[Bug 527488] Review Request: drbd - drbd tools

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527488





--- Comment #42 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp>  2009-10-15 22:38:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> (In reply to comment #40)
> > As one of the sponsor members I want to ask some questions before
> > someone (including) me can start review:
> > 
> > - Would you explain why non-arch-independent files under /usr/lib/%{name}
> >   cannot be moved to %{_datadir}?

- Oops... I meant why "arch-independent" files under /usr/lib/%{name}
  cannot be moved to %{_datadir}?
> 
> They are arch-independent. All that gets installed in that directory is a
> number of shell scripts that are provided for drbd's userland callouts (which
> it fires in a number of situations, such as detecting split brain or becoming a
> synchronization target). Fabio and I have discussed this issue here; please see
> comment #16.

- Your comment 16 does not answer my question. Usually arch-independent
  files are supposed to be installed under %{_datadir}.

> 
> > - Would you explain why you want to keep "%bcond_with km" part 
> >   on the spec file which seems completely unneeded on Fedora 
> >   ( according to your comments )?
> 
> Well for one thing it's positively needed for this package review, as the drbd
> backport is not in the Fedora kernel as yet. :) Fabio has pointed out (in
> comment #5 and comment #24, among others) that building the kernel module is
> irrelevant for Fedora -- but that other packages do contain userland that is
> expected to interface with a kernel feature that's not in Fedora.

- I am speaking of writing _kernel space_ related hacks on the spec
  file (and you say this is "irrelevant for Fedora", right?)

> The alternative would be to put the kernel module build setup in a separate
> spec, and making that available outside of Fedora -- IMHO that's clearly an
> inferior approach in terms of accessibility.

- IMO Fedora / rpmfusion packages acutally do this approach.

> 
> >   Removing parts which are not needed for Fedora will make the spec
> >   file more readable and preferred.
> >   ( And I think anyway this "%bcond_with km" part is completely
> >     broken because we don't ensure that the kernel version of
> >     the build server and of the host that the rebuilt binary rpm
> >     is to be used is the same.
> 
> That's actually irrelevant; we can build the userland on any kernel, it doesn't
> need to match that of the kernel module build.

- What I am speaking is when "--with km" is passed to your srpm
  and not speaking about only building userland part binary rpm.
  So if you're thinking of userland build, again "%bcond_with km"
  is not needed.

> 
> >   For example while F-12 kernel is
> >     now 2.6.31.1, the build server to build F-12 rpms uses
> >     2.6.18 kernel: see the build.log of your comment 33)
> 
> Yes. Again, irrelevant to the userland build. Users can always locally build
> the kernel module from the source rpm. And don't need to build anything else.

- So this (i.e. user _has to_ build locally kernel module) is not expected
  on Fedora."

> 
> > - Similarly, would you explain why you want to keep
> >   %if %{without udev} part on Fedora?
> 
> Because users who rebuild my choose not to use the drbd udev integration
> scripts at all? We default to what seems sensible (to us), that is, use udev,
> but there's no reason to force this upon users, so they can and will disable
> this if they see fit.

- So why is it needed _on Fedora_? (i.e. why do you expect that F-10/11/12/13
  user chooses not to use udev integration scripts although all of them
  have udev installed?)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.