-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/07/15 15:46, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: [...] >> I'm co-maintainer of both jerasure and ceph. If the Debian >> jerasure package was orphaned, I would be happy to step in and >> maintain it as a standalone package. Jerasure was packaged >> without dialog with the jerasure upstream and I can understand >> that keeping it in sync with what ceph needs is significant >> work. > > Loic thanks for your offer to help with this. We definitively need > some upstream assistence on this. IMO while the current approach to > just use the bundled version is suboptimal, the previous approach > to just unilaterally use a different version of jerasure than > upstream is not good either. > > Currently ceph is AFAICS the only reverse dependency of jerasure. > I don't know why Thomas packaged it in the first place. But if we > want to keept the standalone package it might be the best for the > ceph maintainers group to take over maintenance of the jerasure > Debian package. I hope Thomas won't mind if we lower the burden for > him a bit.
I can help there - OpenStack Swift has erasure coding support as of 2.3.0; Thomas packaged Jerasure for this purpose. > The ceph Debian package git repository only contains very little > reasoning about the change. James can you please expand on this a > bit? In general I would prefer to have changes like this in their > own commit and not mixed with unrelated changelog updates. Did the > Hammer release not build with the jerasure in Debian or are you > just afraid of unexpected results if the Debian package is built > with another version of jerasure than what they ship in their > source code? These would IMO be valid reasons to (temporarily) > remove the patch. Re-basing the patch - which was turning out to be non-trivial - pushed me over the time I had todo this update; as the upload was to experimental only, I intended to revisit when time permitted. I also need to catchup on getting the 'modules' patch upstreamed; that's also awkward with every Ceph release. > What's the ceph upstream position on splitting out jerasure and > building against the standalone version? Is this considered > supported? Are you willing to accept a patch which either uses a > standalone jerausre for all builds or which introduces a configure > flag to do so? I would prefer to see this approach taken; I hope upstream would be supportive. - -- James Page Ubuntu and Debian Developer james.p...@ubuntu.com jamesp...@debian.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVmrl2AAoJEL/srsug59jD3mQQALNGnqV+Z18zkmi8qf1di69d Y3rRmmE26/uPsKjpUPxFxLDSZjPTteT1HhrNeIukoWGdXWfTnMBLTgz18Vy7fgG+ kFPd20VYOpO2BHpgkStK8dvjKVu0TA5BNXfMGy/Hv7Ap6oad/vc8siQHm4zFOAyA +oqHKcCTulPBBSCiQfop2va270Nx0ynkiNq7aK2R80G3wl0REhG0+RIQOef4N1Zf QnL/ZvAcwVBMLRqBBUDPfr0AdL2h5Ddq+4o9ub3w5xmI7W4aGQlIrJCjLc4dqvaV sXeVo44mpJmtHIl3QYNxJQ80iPa6PXQCWq+OiGnFGIqCQRHNGgX04PR5mM8108El 429f8zDTAA/zBsEagnGNTkLPGYiaIglC8XtqONALEmVLe7J4fHA8qubYoZbM0imL 8FTg7wK5ysWge+pkwCzp/iWz5swoWiZikKQ+cuvm8R+nCdcWL+6E8Cba7XhVJSFG AYwnNtzseaOSbQjNLr0L6wGUR+eZJugCDvXAh7zi9UF0Qnot+CVmVHBP3SALJkrD 9jOE/lU5BiUVDnNdTahJeZ6qwO7GfL9vrUUy87E7VupmoD2dzbht3QSS11VKGTpM /Zh/bkt6vCp1HMyVBMfLPO9StHDY6KFCrm0/RmAhB1AbDawFM6lGeUprJggoBMSk sCGX4t3vrGgiXVCZ6WDI =Hz2B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
