[Gluster-devel] How can we prevent GlusterFS packaging installation/update issues in future?
Niels de Vos
ndevos at redhat.com
Thu Feb 19 11:51:37 UTC 2015
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:52:41PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
> On 02/19/2015 04:25 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 03:45:41PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
> >>On 02/19/2015 02:30 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> >>>Hey Pranith!
> >>>Thanks for putting this topic on my radar. Uncommunicated packaging
> >>>changes have indeed been a pain for non-RPM distributions on several
> >>>occasions. We should try to inform other packagers about required
> >>>changes in the packaging scripts or upgrade/installation process better.
> >>>On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:26:33PM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >>>>How can we make the process of giving good packages for things other than
> >>>My guess is that we need to announce packaging changes very clearly.
> >>>Maybe it makes sense to have a very low-traffic packaging at gluster.org
> >>>mailinglist where all packagers from all distributions are subscribed?
> >>+1 for announce packaging changes very clearly.
> >>But I think we should keep using gluster-devel ML for packaging discussions
> >>as IMO it is the right platform to get all developers and packagers
> >>together. However We need to discuss these stuff clearly which we lacked
> >My idea was to reduce the number of emails that packagers receive. Not
> >all packagers are active as a Gluster developer, and the -devel list has
> >quite some traffic. I am afraid that important changes would get lost in
> >the noise.
> I understand. However my thought was, if we segregate the discussion we
> might miss valuable feedback from developers. Also not sure if discussion
> around packaging on gluster-devel will increase understanding around
> packaging of developers. I agree with you on the email traffic though.
I prefer to not bother most developers with the packaging. If they are
interested, they can subscribe to the packagers list :-)
Developers should clearly state how their components need to get
installed/updated, they should be able to send those details to the
packaging list. When we review changes to the .spec, we should keep in
mind to share those details too.
If we as packagers notice any issues, we would file a bug or request
input on the gluster-devel list. Once the issue is settled, a
description can be shared among the packagers.
Do you think that should be workable?
> >>>I've added all packagers that I could track on CC, and am interested in
> >>>their preferences and ideas.
More information about the Gluster-devel