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...
