On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 05:14:11PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 10:22:53AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:57:13PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:04:35AM +1100, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > All other patches seem fine to me. Can you please push them. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Incidentally, Martin, is there a reason not to have debian > > > > > directories upstream in glue and agents? > > > > > > > > dev/debian seems to also have been removed. > > > > I must say, I'd rather it hadn't been. > > > > > > Martin (Madkiss) and I talked about this, > > > and the conclusioin was to remove debian/* from upstream. > > > > > > BTW, > > > please consider to go one changeset further than the 3.0.2 tag: > > > http://hg.linux-ha.org/heartbeat-STABLE_3_0/rev/70df28657107 > > > You may need to add the dopd directory to the appropriate place > > > in the debian initscript and file lists. > > > > I must be missing the point. > > > > To me that seems to only highlight that packaging issues > > are being handled in the tree. .spec files are being maintained > > in the tree. > > > > > So let's say, somehow you miss the "build from scratch", > > > because you confuse Debian with Gentoo ;-) > > > > > > If you really don't want the packages from > > > http://people.debian.org/~madkiss/ha, > > > but _insist_ to build them yourself, > > > > I am one of the Debian maintainers for heartbeat. > > I do build packages myself. And more importantly, > > I do make updates to the files in debian/ > > Yes. > > > Removing the files is an interesting way to a resolve the lag. > > Updating the files would be the approach that I would prefer. > > I'm ok with that. My understanding was that "debian", who ever > that is, preferred to track changes to debian themselves. > > It seems this is at least slightly controversial, > so sorry to not have discussed that in a wider audience. > > If "debian" decides to track it in "hg.linux-ha.org", > I'm very happy to put it back in. > > > The thing is, that debian/ really needs to be maintained somewhere. > > Correct. > > > And it was being maintained on ha.linux.org by Dejan, myself and others. > > As Martin and I meed face to face every day, I took his opinion > as representative for "debian". > > > It was my assumption that Martin would continue with this practice. > > That would be perfectly fine with me. > > > An idea that Martin suggested on IRC is to have separate trees for > > debian/. To be honest this is not my preferred option. But it does address > > my major concern, which is that the debian/ directories are no longer under > > revision control. And it also seems to work for people worried about lag. > > > > Dejan, would that work for you? > > Martin, I'm assuming that you are still ok with this idea. > > > > If so I think we should about getting > > hg.linux-ha.org/debian/{agents,dev,glue,heartbeat-STABLE_3_0} > > or something similar set up? Does anyone have any preferences > > for the naming of the repositories? > > Again, my apologies for not going to the list first. > > For "comsumers", i.e. non-maintainers wanting to build > the latest tip themselves, having debian/* in the > upstream repositories would be more convenient. > > But I'm have no preferences this way or an other. > > This is my suggestion: > "debian", please discuss this out, and then we put debian/* back with > whatever content an location you agree uppon, and we tag that 3.0.3 > in two weeks time. > > Is that Ok with everybody?
Yes, I agree that "debian" should work something out. Sorry for spilling things into this forum. _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
