On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2012, at 3:48 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> Is this really ready?  The trunk version (if even tested on trunk) at
>> best barely works, and this hasn't seen many eyes.
>
> I don't have access to an AIX machine, so can only rely on Michael's 
> judgement for this. Given that we aren't awash with AIX expertise, we need to 
> put some trust in the person doing the packaging, the same as we do for 
> Netware and other similar platforms.

FWLIW, others on the list have access.

>> Has the packaging of dependent libraries been figured out?  Is there
>> really a such thing as  "ASF.apu.rte and ASF.apr.rte filesets"?
>> Is it appropriate that a package built by a random user is labeled as
>> an "ASF" package, as if the ASF created it?
>
> I don't see why labeling it "ASF" is a problem. Anyone building the package 
> would be doing so by following a formal procedure codified in the build 
> script, which is in turn published by the ASF, as opposed some vendor's build 
> script.

Maybe this info would help...  I dunno.  This really is project-only
scope we're managing, not ASF-wide scope.  Either there is
coordination among different projects, or it shouldn't look like there
is.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.aix.genprogc/doc/genprogc/pkging_sw4_install.htm

>
>> Is it appropriate to instruct users that in some cases they should
>> "add symbolic links from /usr/include to /opt/include"?
>
> It looks like zlib isn't necessarily available as a proper package. Given we 
> don't ship zlib, but depend on it, if the platform has certain limitations 
> regarding the availability of certain dependencies, we would need to work 
> around that.

It doesn't sound like the right technical solution to me.  CPPFLAGS?

>
>> What about the todos regarding copyrights and licenses?
>
> What specifically about them?

The todo file you committed says that verbatim ;)  What are they, and
why can't they be resolved before committing?

> From what I can see, AIX packages offer the option to force the end user to 
> accept a license before installing a package, and there is an open question 
> as to whether we do this or not. We don't do it for RPM (nor does RPM let you 
> do this), I see no reason to mandate doing it here.

License acceptance is one thing.  I dunno what the copyright issue is.

>
>> What about the trivial issue of hard-coding the version?  (search for
>> "2.2.22")  Presumably the real version is figured out later, but why
>> is this in there?
>
> A mistake perhaps?
>
> Looks like VERSION is defined twice, once hard coded, and then a second time 
> properly. Solution seems to be to remove the first attempt to set VERSION.
>
>> Committing to trunk is one thing, but IMO before moving to stable
>> branches, especially 2.2.x, this needs careful review by at minimum
>> someone who is very familiar with AIX and will test it personally, and
>> hopefully by others who will ask the necessary questions to understand
>> the ramifications, and not end up having to repair the thing in
>> 2.2.(n+5)/2.4.(n+5) and break compatibility with previous versions.
>>
>> Hats off to Michael for working on this, but this contains a lot of
>> gory details to consider, and AFAIK no one who has logged onto an AIX
>> box since mid-2008 has stared at it enough to identify even the most
>> trivial of issues.
>
> The build for v2.2.x will look nothing like the build for v2.4.x, and for 
> this reason there is no way to apply changes to trunk, and then backport it, 
> as each branch works completely differently, and therefore the build will 
> work completely differently.
>
> If this is too much of a pain, working from a branch might be a better idea 
> until these issues are solved.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>



-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Reply via email to