[Ocfs2-tools-devel] Re: ocfs2-tools for Debian/Ubuntu

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto]

Joel Becker wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:26:07PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> 
>>- - the 2 {ocfs2console,ocfs2-tools}.copyright files are identincal. You can just
>>  rename one of them copyright and remove the other. The file will be installed
> 
> 
> 	Ok, cool.  Please forgive me when I don't know the ins-and-outs
> of debhelper, it's been two years since I last did a debian/ from
> scratch (and this one actually started as cp -a from another of my
> programs).

eheh sure.. please don't think of my comments as an absolute statement ;)

the packages you have done are pretty good and as i said they were mostly cosmetic details
to make your life easier in the long run and keep as less files as possible around.
Imho.. less files, less possibility to forget something behind ;)

>>- - The README.Debian is empty :). There is no real need to ship one. It's up to maintainer
>>  if you want to ship extra specific distro documentation or information to the user, but
>>  it's not mandatory.
> 
> 
> 	Somehow I thought it was.  Might be putting some info in there
> though (see below).
> 
> 
>>- - debian/rules is pretty ok. I usually (but this is really a personal preference) remove
>>  all the calls that are not needed to build the package. Including the ones that are commented
>>  out from the different examples.
> 
> 
> 	I leave them in because I have this debian/rules from a package
> with both binary-dep and binary-indep packages, and seeing the commented
> out lines helps me remember what debhelper stuff I can use (silly, I
> know, but again I'm not a debhelper expert.  In fact, I just moved to
> dh_install from dh_movefiles in these packages last week).

fair enough :)


> 
>>You builded very nice packages for sarge, but I think we should also look at what would
>>be the future of it. In Ubuntu i used python2.4 and given that it is also in Debian,
>>it is worth to leave 2.3 behind.
> 
> 
> 	Yosh will have to comment on this.  We both run sid, and I'm
> wondering how the python-gtk2 stuff fleshes out with python2.4.

oh right. good point.. in Ubuntu we already have it. I guess it will hit debian sid
pretty soon. That clearly makes the above point invalid.

> 
> 
>>Another little thing that i noticed is that you make use of /etc/default/$pkgsname. Since
>>ocfs2 requires also the cluster config file, I did put them together in /etc/ocfs2/
> 
> 
> 	We package for Debian, Red Hat, and Novell.  Those all do this
> sort of thing in /etc/sysconfig.  In Debian, the equivalent is
> /etc/default.
> 	We kind of thing of /etc/default/o2cb as "the configuration for
> the /etc/init.d/o2cb script", where as /etc/ocfs2 is "the configuration
> for the cluster".  They are quite distinct, but if Debian folks were
> really insistent on keeping them both in /etc/ocfs2, I don't know that
> I'd fight really hard.

Oh there is no fight to take. it's not a policy or mandatory to put config files together.
As I said it's a question of personal preference and I wanted to share my experience on
splitting config files in different places.

> 
> 
>>The last thing (that i still need to fix in Ubuntu too) is the way in which the configfile
>>(/etc/default/o2cb) is manipulated. Using "/etc/init.d/o2cb configure" is not exactly the
>>Debian way of doing packages configuration.
> 
> 
> 	No, but it is consistent with how the software works across the
> multiple distributions.  There is no debconf on Red Hat or Novell.

Yup.

> 	This touches on a couple of personal biases as well.  I
> personally feel that package installation and package configuration are
> two seperate steps.  It frustrates me to no end when debconf pauses an
> installation/upgrade I left to run unattended.

This can be done properly without having issues on upgrades. We can ask
the question at the first install and clearly skip them on upgrades.
I had no plan to do in any otherway. Also setting proper defaults
and questions priority will probably skip the questions on install too.

>  On AIX, I used to do
> distributed upgrades on 100 machines at once.  Because installation
> never paused to ask a question, I didn't even need stdin attached.

yup.. i understand.

> 	It also runs into the fact that I never found debconf docs easy
> enough (or visible enough, even) to get my feet wet.  If you want to
> provide debconfification, cool.

Yes because it will be mandatory soon.

>  I suspect a reasonable compromise would
> be to debconfify the stuff, but still allow "/etc/init.d/o2cb configure"
> to work.  Most folks just wouldn't ever need to run it, because it was
> debconf'd at install time.

I had no plan to kill "configure" from the init at all. Instead either integrate
debconf in it (that can easily be done without damaging any of the other distros) or copy it's
simple logic in the postinst.



-- 
no signature file found.