Bug#815760: marked as done (ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 07 Nov 2016 10:00:20 +
with message-id 
and subject line Bug#815760: fixed in dpdk 16.07-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #815760,
regarding ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
815760: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815760
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
Package: wnpp
Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: dpdk
  Version : 2.2
  Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
* URL : http://dpdk.org/
* License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2 (kernel components)
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : Data Plane Development Kit

1. What is DPDK useful for
DPDK is a set of libraries and drivers for fast packet processing. It
was designed to run on any processors. The first supported CPU was Intel
x86 and it is now extended to IBM Power 8, EZchip TILE-Gx and ARM. It
runs mostly in Linux userland. A FreeBSD port is available for a subset
of DPDK features.

Main libraries
- multicore framework
- huge page memory
- ring buffers
- poll-mode drivers

Usage
These libraries can be used to:
- receive and send packets within the minimum number of CPU cycles
  (usually less than 80 cycles)
- develop fast packet capture algorithms (tcpdump-like)
- run third-party fast path stacks
Some packet processing functions have been benchmarked up to hundreds
million frames per second, using 64-byte packets with a PCIe NIC.


2. Maintenance Plan
I'm currently maintaining dpdk for ubuntu (launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpdk)
and the existing packaging should be suitable for Debian also.

It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share the
work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.

But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: dpdk
Source-Version: 16.07-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
dpdk, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 815...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Luca Boccassi  (supplier of updated dpdk package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@ftp-master.debian.org)


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:40:31 +0100
Source: dpdk
Binary: dpdk dpdk-dev dpdk-doc dpdk-igb-uio-dkms dpdk-rte-kni-dkms libdpdk-dev 
libethdev4 librte-acl2 librte-cfgfile2 librte-cmdline2 librte-cryptodev1 
librte-distributor1 librte-eal2 librte-hash2 librte-ip-frag1 librte-jobstats1 
librte-kni2 librte-kvargs1 librte-lpm2 librte-mbuf2 librte-mempool2 
librte-meter1 librte-pipeline3 librte-pmd-af-packet1 librte-pmd-bnxt1 
librte-pmd-bond1 librte-pmd-cxgbe1 librte-pmd-e1000-1 librte-pmd-ena1 
librte-pmd-enic1 librte-pmd-fm10k1 librte-pmd-i40e1 librte-pmd-ixgbe1 
librte-pmd-null-crypto1 librte-pmd-null1 librte-pmd-pcap1 librte-pmd-ring2 
librte-pmd-vhost1 librte-pmd-virtio1 librte-pmd-vmxnet3-uio1 
librte-pmd-xenvirt1 librte-port3 librte-power1 librte-reorder1 librte-ring1 
librte-sched1 librte-table2 librte-timer1 librte-vhost3 librte-pdump1
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 16.07-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: deb_dpdk Packagers 
Changed-By: Luca Boccassi 
Description:
 dpdk   - Data Plane Development Kit (runtime)
 dpdk-dev   - Data Plane Development Kit (development files)
 dpdk-doc   - Data Plane Development Kit (documentation)
 dpdk-igb-uio-dkms - Data Plane Development Kit (igb uio dkms)
 dpdk-rte-kni-dkms - Data Plane Development Kit (rte kni dkms)
 libdpdk-dev - Data Plane Development Kit (basic development files)
 libethdev4 - Data Plane Development Kit (libethdev runtime library)
 librte-acl2 - Data Plane Development Kit (librte-acl runtime library)
 librte-cfgfile2 - Data Plane Development Kit (librte-cfgfile runtime library)
 librte-cmdline2 - Data Plane Development Kit (librte-cmdline runtime library)
 librt

Processed: Re: Bug#815760: dpdk in NEW

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + pending
Bug #815760 [wnpp] ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
815760: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815760
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#815760: dpdk in NEW

[santiag...@riseup.net]

Control: tags -1 + pending

DPDK is in NEW now.

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[Christian Ehrhardt]

Hi,
I reviewed, split and posted your changes to the project for further review
and acceptance along with my man page changes.
Thanks for your contribution.

With all those applied and the recent work of luca lintian is happy with us
now.

But we should no more hijack that bug.
Please for any further discussion comments use mailing list and gerrit of
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Deb_dpdk


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, santiag...@riseup.net <
santiag...@riseup.net> wrote:

> El 15/09/16 a las 09:04, Christian Ehrhardt escribió:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Luca Boccassi 
> wrote:
> >
> > Christian has sent patches upstream a couple weeks back:
> >
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15553/
>
> Great!
>
> > And we carry the former version of that submission as a patch for now to
> fix
> > packaging as-is for now.
> > Once accepted upstream that delta will be rebased for 16.07 topic branch
> to
> > match the accepted version.
> > For 16.11 I expect them to be upstream so on that topic branch we can
> drop the
> > delta then.
>
> So would you like to include it in debian/patches for now?
>
>
> Attached you can find other three patches to fix minor issues, and make
> lintian happier.
> What else would be needed to upload to debian?
>
> Cheers, and thanks a lot for your work!
>
> Santiago
>



-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[Luca Boccassi]

On Sep 16, 2016 08:53, "santiag...@riseup.net" 
wrote:
>
> El 15/09/16 a las 09:04, Christian Ehrhardt escribió:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Luca Boccassi 
wrote:
> >
> > Christian has sent patches upstream a couple weeks back:
> >
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15553/
>
> Great!
>
> > And we carry the former version of that submission as a patch for now
to fix
> > packaging as-is for now.
> > Once accepted upstream that delta will be rebased for 16.07 topic
branch to
> > match the accepted version.
> > For 16.11 I expect them to be upstream so on that topic branch we can
drop the
> > delta then.
>
> So would you like to include it in debian/patches for now?
>
>
> Attached you can find other three patches to fix minor issues, and make
> lintian happier.
> What else would be needed to upload to debian?
>
> Cheers, and thanks a lot for your work!
>
> Santiago

Hi,

Thanks again, but could you please add the signoff to your patches? We
cannot apply them as-is otherwise.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[santiag...@riseup.net]

El 15/09/16 a las 09:04, Christian Ehrhardt escribió:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Luca Boccassi  
> wrote:
> 
> Christian has sent patches upstream a couple weeks back:
> 
> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15553/

Great!

> And we carry the former version of that submission as a patch for now to fix
> packaging as-is for now.
> Once accepted upstream that delta will be rebased for 16.07 topic branch to
> match the accepted version.
> For 16.11 I expect them to be upstream so on that topic branch we can drop the
> delta then.

So would you like to include it in debian/patches for now?


Attached you can find other three patches to fix minor issues, and make
lintian happier.
What else would be needed to upload to debian?

Cheers, and thanks a lot for your work!

Santiago
From 1108622aa88d56abf0e635e14768ef75eff55306 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santiago 
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:28:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] debian/changelog: fix minor typos

Gbp-Dch: Ignore
---
 debian/changelog | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index fc040d5..007a8eb 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ dpdk (16.07-0~git1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
   * d/p/dpdk-dev-doc-fix-old-dpdk-nic-bind.py-references.patch to fix the
 docs in regard to 16.07 changes renaming dpdk_nic_bind
   * d/p/make-load-devel-config-not-to-appear-as-executable.patch to avoid
-accidentially executing as script and to fix unusual-interpreter lintian
+accidentally executing as script and to fix unusual-interpreter lintian
 warning.
   * fix d/t/test-initscripts on more recent systemd environments
   * enable dpdk for ppc64el
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ dpdk (16.07-0~git1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
   * Add lintian-overrides for: "W: dpdk-doc: embedded-javascript-library"
   * Add optional binary kernel modules package, disabled by default (build with
 DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=kernel_modules to enable). If enabled will build kernel
-modules agains the local, current kernel version (override by adding
+modules against the local, current kernel version (override by adding
 ksrc= to DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) into a
 dpdk-modules- package
   * Set HOST_/EXTRA/CPP/C/LDFLAGS in d/rules so that all built objects pick up
-- 
2.1.4

From 4a728b804fe002a8447d7c3118dd1afbd12598c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santiago 
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:22:29 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] debian/copyright: fix some wrong file entries

Gbp-Dch: Ignore
---
 debian/copyright | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index 49358f7..a0babbe 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ Copyright: 2007-2014, Intel Corporation.
 License: BSD-3-clause or LGPL-2.1
 
 Files: lib/librte_compat/rte_compat.h
- script
  drivers/net/vmxnet3/base/upt1_defs.h
- drivers/net/vmxnet3/base/vmxnet3_defs.hs/validate-abi.sh
+ drivers/net/vmxnet3/base/vmxnet3_defs.h
+ scripts/validate-abi.sh
 Copyright: 2015, Neil Horman 
2007, VMware, Inc.
 License: BSD-2-clause
-- 
2.1.4

From 10638d6224623f5c5ec978b06eefcf545e0e6b22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santiago 
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:25:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] debian/control: remove duplicate Homepage: and Section:
 fields

Gbp-Dch: Ignore
---
 debian/control | 46 --
 1 file changed, 46 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index b2a38e4..7205167 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ Vcs-Browser: https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=deb_dpdk.git
 Package: dpdk
 Section: admin
 Architecture: amd64 arm64 i386 ppc64el
-Homepage: http://www.dpdk.org
 Depends: libdpdk-dev (= ${binary:Version}),
  lsb-base (>= 3.2-14),
  pciutils,
@@ -42,7 +41,6 @@ Description: Data Plane Development Kit (runtime)
 Package: dpdk-dev
 Section: devel
 Architecture: amd64 arm64 i386 ppc64el
-Homepage: http://www.dpdk.org
 Depends: libdpdk-dev (= ${binary:Version}), ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
 Description: Data Plane Development Kit (development files)
  DPDK is a set of libraries for fast packet processing. Applications run
@@ -148,7 +146,6 @@ Description: Data Plane Development Kit (basic development files)
 
 Package: libethdev4
 Architecture: amd64 arm64 i386 ppc64el
-Section: libs
 Multi-Arch: same
 Homepage: http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html
 Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
@@ -161,7 +158,6 @@ Description: Data Plane Development Kit (libethdev runtime library)
 
 Package: librte-acl2
 Architecture: amd64 arm64 i386
-Section: libs
 Multi-Arch: same
 Homepage: http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html
 Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
@@ -174,7 +170,6 @@ Description: Data Plane Development Kit (librte-acl runtime library)
 
 Package: librte-cfgfile2
 Architecture: amd64 arm64 i386 ppc64el
-Section: libs
 Mul

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[Christian Ehrhardt]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Luca Boccassi 
wrote:

> Christian has sent patches upstream a couple weeks back:
>
> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15553/
>

And we carry the former version of that submission as a patch for now to
fix packaging as-is for now.
Once accepted upstream that delta will be rebased for 16.07 topic branch to
match the accepted version.
For 16.11 I expect them to be upstream so on that topic branch we can drop
the delta then.

Thanks,
Christian


-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[Luca Boccassi]

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 17:45 +0200, santiag...@riseup.net wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So sorry for this time to answer.
> 
> El 26/07/16 a las 14:56, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> > On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 17:08 +0200, santiag...@riseup.net wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > El 06/07/16 a las 10:27, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> > > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:57:33 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón 
> > > > >  > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> 
> […]
> 
> > > However, lintian is not happy, as you can see in the attached report.
> > > Some of the points to highlight from it that, IMHO could block uploading
> > > are:
> > > 
> > > 1. W: libdpdk-librte-pmd-xenvirt1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames 
> > > librte-pmd-xenvirt1 and related:
> > >Any reason to add the libdpdk- name prefix to the librte-* libraries?
> > >Usually, the name of a binary library package follows its SONAME, and
> > >thus just librte-* would be more accurate.
> > 
> > Some time ago the libraries were renamed and no longer have the libdpdk- 
> > prefix:
> > 
> > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=deb_dpdk.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;h=37a64437bf1d566082477923d91618c1b9016725;hb=refs/heads/deb_dpdk_16.07
> 
> Humm, I was following the master branch instead. Any reason to don't
> merge this deb_dpdk_16.07 into master?
> 
> I am starting to work over this branch now, so I will have to do part of
> the job again. For the moment, the rest of the mail is a quick answer.

We will soon have a 16.11 branch I think. We didn't discuss in details
but I don't know if we'll be using the master branch again or just stay
on the topic branches.

> > > 2. Hardening: it seems that build flags need to be fixed. E.g:
> > >W: libdpdk-librte-eal2: hardening-no-relro 
> > > usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librte_eal.so.2
> > 
> > Some were fixed, but yes indeed there's a few more to deal with, will do as 
> > soon as I have time. But given the possible performance implications it 
> > might be good to consult with upstream.
> 
> Indeed, seems to be fixed. Thanks!

With the latest version as of today all the hardening and the other
lintian errors are fixed, the manpages are what's missing but there's a
patch upstream for that.

> > > 3. I am not sure the licensing (and then debian/copyright) is not as
> > >simple as a dual GPL-2/BSD for core stuff and GPL for kernel 
> > > components,
> > >as README states. I will check carefully this, since no accurate
> > >debian/copyright, no upload possible.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that's what upstream advertises and a quick run of 
> > licensecheck seems to confirm that, but if you find otherwise please do 
> > flag that both with us and upstream
> 
> Actually, my wording was not accurate either, since README doesn't claim
> *dual* licensing but different licenses for different components. BSD
> (3-clause) for the core and GPLv2 for kernel-related.
> 
> Anyway, licensecheck outputs files under other licenses. E.g.: 
> 
> […]
> ./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/icp_qat_fw.h: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
> ./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/icp_qat_fw_la.h: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
> ./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/adf_transport_access_macros.h: BSD (3 clause) 
> GPL (v2)
> ./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/qat_algs_build_desc.c: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
> […]
> ./lib/librte_compat/rte_compat.h: BSD (2 clause)
> […]
> 
> Attached you can find a patch for debian/copyright, that I think it's
> accurate with the current source. FTR, it is based on (and thanks to): 
> 
> licensecheck --copyright -r `find * -type f` | \
>   /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 > debian/copyright.auto
> 
> Also, AFAICS there are a couple of files in lib/librte_net/ that need
> some cleaning by upstream.

Thanks for the patch, I'll have a look and apply it!

> > > 4. It would be great to have manpages for these binaries:
> > > 
> > >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage sbin/dpdk_nic_bind
> > >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/dpdk_proc_info
> > >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/testpmd
> > 
> > Yes absolutely, patches are welcome :-)
> 
> Unless somebody else beats me, I will try do them at some point.

Christian has sent patches upstream a couple weeks back:

http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15553/

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[santiag...@riseup.net]

Hi,

So sorry for this time to answer.

El 26/07/16 a las 14:56, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 17:08 +0200, santiag...@riseup.net wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > El 06/07/16 a las 10:27, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:57:33 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón 
> > > >  > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:

[…]

> > However, lintian is not happy, as you can see in the attached report.
> > Some of the points to highlight from it that, IMHO could block uploading
> > are:
> > 
> > 1. W: libdpdk-librte-pmd-xenvirt1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames 
> > librte-pmd-xenvirt1 and related:
> >Any reason to add the libdpdk- name prefix to the librte-* libraries?
> >Usually, the name of a binary library package follows its SONAME, and
> >thus just librte-* would be more accurate.
> 
> Some time ago the libraries were renamed and no longer have the libdpdk- 
> prefix:
> 
> https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=deb_dpdk.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;h=37a64437bf1d566082477923d91618c1b9016725;hb=refs/heads/deb_dpdk_16.07

Humm, I was following the master branch instead. Any reason to don't
merge this deb_dpdk_16.07 into master?

I am starting to work over this branch now, so I will have to do part of
the job again. For the moment, the rest of the mail is a quick answer.

> > 2. Hardening: it seems that build flags need to be fixed. E.g:
> >W: libdpdk-librte-eal2: hardening-no-relro 
> > usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librte_eal.so.2
> 
> Some were fixed, but yes indeed there's a few more to deal with, will do as 
> soon as I have time. But given the possible performance implications it might 
> be good to consult with upstream.

Indeed, seems to be fixed. Thanks!

> 
> > 3. I am not sure the licensing (and then debian/copyright) is not as
> >simple as a dual GPL-2/BSD for core stuff and GPL for kernel components,
> >as README states. I will check carefully this, since no accurate
> >debian/copyright, no upload possible.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's what upstream advertises and a quick run of 
> licensecheck seems to confirm that, but if you find otherwise please do flag 
> that both with us and upstream

Actually, my wording was not accurate either, since README doesn't claim
*dual* licensing but different licenses for different components. BSD
(3-clause) for the core and GPLv2 for kernel-related.

Anyway, licensecheck outputs files under other licenses. E.g.: 

[…]
./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/icp_qat_fw.h: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/icp_qat_fw_la.h: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/adf_transport_access_macros.h: BSD (3 clause) GPL 
(v2)
./drivers/crypto/qat/qat_adf/qat_algs_build_desc.c: BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)
[…]
./lib/librte_compat/rte_compat.h: BSD (2 clause)
[…]

Attached you can find a patch for debian/copyright, that I think it's
accurate with the current source. FTR, it is based on (and thanks to): 

licensecheck --copyright -r `find * -type f` | \
  /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 > debian/copyright.auto

Also, AFAICS there are a couple of files in lib/librte_net/ that need
some cleaning by upstream.

> 
> > 4. It would be great to have manpages for these binaries:
> > 
> >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage sbin/dpdk_nic_bind
> >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/dpdk_proc_info
> >W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/testpmd
> 
> Yes absolutely, patches are welcome :-)

Unless somebody else beats me, I will try do them at some point.

Cheers,

Santiago
>From 75565d2710fa5ea75595c2458eb3d6ea35a3866d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Santiago 
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:42:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Review debian/changelog

---
 debian/copyright | 167 ---
 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright
index 48ca4f8..1897203 100644
--- a/debian/copyright
+++ b/debian/copyright
@@ -5,17 +5,110 @@ Source: http://dpdk.org
 Files: *
 Copyright: 2008-2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
2012-2014 6WIND S.A.
-   1999-2015 Intel Corporation.
+   1999-2016 Intel Corporation.
2010-2013 Tilera Corporation.
-   2012  Mellanox.
+   2012-2016 Mellanox.
2007  VMware, Inc.
2007  Nuova Systems, Inc.
2014  IBM Corporation.
-License: BSD+GPLv2+LGPLv2
- BSD:
- Copyright (c) The Regents of the University of California.
- All rights reserved.
+   and many other

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[Luca Boccassi]

On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 17:08 +0200, santiag...@riseup.net wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> El 06/07/16 a las 10:27, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:57:33 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
> >  wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón 
> > >  > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > > > > >  > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Hi Santiago,
> > > so far Luca was planned to maintain it, but I'd assume he is no objecting
> > > to a co-maintainer.
> > > Especially if the co-maintainer can help with the initial upload.
> > > It might be good to know about a lot of details in advance out of the 
> > > scope
> > > of actually uploading it.
> > > We would be happy if you join us in our work even before the initial 
> > > upload
> > > takes place.
> > 
> > No objections at all, more help is always welcome :-)
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> The current dpdk from the fi.io git repo builds ok on a stable
> environment and I am able to make a basic use. Thanks for your work!
> 
> However, lintian is not happy, as you can see in the attached report.
> Some of the points to highlight from it that, IMHO could block uploading
> are:
> 
> 1. W: libdpdk-librte-pmd-xenvirt1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames 
> librte-pmd-xenvirt1 and related:
>Any reason to add the libdpdk- name prefix to the librte-* libraries?
>Usually, the name of a binary library package follows its SONAME, and
>thus just librte-* would be more accurate.

Some time ago the libraries were renamed and no longer have the libdpdk- prefix:

https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=deb_dpdk.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;h=37a64437bf1d566082477923d91618c1b9016725;hb=refs/heads/deb_dpdk_16.07

> 2. Hardening: it seems that build flags need to be fixed. E.g:
>W: libdpdk-librte-eal2: hardening-no-relro 
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librte_eal.so.2

Some were fixed, but yes indeed there's a few more to deal with, will do as 
soon as I have time. But given the possible performance implications it might 
be good to consult with upstream.

> 3. I am not sure the licensing (and then debian/copyright) is not as
>simple as a dual GPL-2/BSD for core stuff and GPL for kernel components,
>as README states. I will check carefully this, since no accurate
>debian/copyright, no upload possible.

I'm pretty sure that's what upstream advertises and a quick run of licensecheck 
seems to confirm that, but if you find otherwise please do flag that both with 
us and upstream

> 4. It would be great to have manpages for these binaries:
> 
>W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage sbin/dpdk_nic_bind
>W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/dpdk_proc_info
>W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/testpmd

Yes absolutely, patches are welcome :-)

> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Santiago

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming :-)

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760: dpdk debian packaging

[santiag...@riseup.net]

Hi,

El 06/07/16 a las 10:27, Luca Boccassi escribió:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:57:33 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
>  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón 
> >  > > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > > > >  > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >

[...]

> > Hi Santiago,
> > so far Luca was planned to maintain it, but I'd assume he is no objecting
> > to a co-maintainer.
> > Especially if the co-maintainer can help with the initial upload.
> > It might be good to know about a lot of details in advance out of the scope
> > of actually uploading it.
> > We would be happy if you join us in our work even before the initial upload
> > takes place.
> 
> No objections at all, more help is always welcome :-)

Thanks :)

The current dpdk from the fi.io git repo builds ok on a stable
environment and I am able to make a basic use. Thanks for your work!

However, lintian is not happy, as you can see in the attached report.
Some of the points to highlight from it that, IMHO could block uploading
are:

1. W: libdpdk-librte-pmd-xenvirt1: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames 
librte-pmd-xenvirt1 and related:
   Any reason to add the libdpdk- name prefix to the librte-* libraries?
   Usually, the name of a binary library package follows its SONAME, and
   thus just librte-* would be more accurate.

2. Hardening: it seems that build flags need to be fixed. E.g:
   W: libdpdk-librte-eal2: hardening-no-relro 
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librte_eal.so.2

3. I am not sure the licensing (and then debian/copyright) is not as
   simple as a dual GPL-2/BSD for core stuff and GPL for kernel components,
   as README states. I will check carefully this, since no accurate
   debian/copyright, no upload possible.

4. It would be great to have manpages for these binaries:

   W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage sbin/dpdk_nic_bind
   W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/dpdk_proc_info
   W: dpdk: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/testpmd

What do you think?

Cheers,

Santiago
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "homepage" in 
package dpdk
N: 
N:In debian/control, this field for a binary package duplicates the value
N:inherited from the source package paragraph. This doesn't hurt anything,
N:but you may want to take advantage of the inheritance and set the value
N:in only one place. It prevents missing duplicate places that need to be
N:fixed if the value ever changes.
N:
N:Severity: wishlist, Certainty: certain
N:
N:Check: control-file, Type: source
N: 
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "homepage" in 
package dpdk-dev
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "homepage" in 
package libdpdk-dev
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-libethdev3
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-acl2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-cfgfile2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-cmdline2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-cryptodev1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-distributor1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-eal2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-hash2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-ip-frag1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-jobstats1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-kni2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-kvargs1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-lpm2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-mbuf2
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-mempool1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-meter1
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-pipeline3
I: dpdk source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in 
package libdpdk-librte-pmd-af-packet1
I: dpdk source: binary-co

Bug#815760:

[Luca Boccassi]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:57:33 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón  > wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
> >  wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > > >  > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a
> > > > > Debian user
> > > > > for a couple of decades now. I've even been an uploader, years
> > > > > ago.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi C.J.,
> > > > great to hear that you want to help as well - I'm sure it will get
> > > > great.
> > > > We are Currently three people:
> > > > - Luca Boccassi - DM, already applied for package upload permissions
> > > > - Martin Thiago - Experienced in experimenting with
> > > > DPDK/Debian/Ubuntu,
> > > > giving us a broad testing&usage range
> > > > - Myself - Packaging DPDK for Ubuntu, Testing DPDK with integrated
> > > > tests
> > > > and Openvswitch-DPDK
> > > >
> > > > You would be a great addition to our group - more Debian experience
> > > > will
> > > > surely help.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516
> > > > >
> > > > > These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the
> > > > > DPDK
> > > > > packages are good.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > From what I learned with packaging DPDK 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04 there
> > > > are a
> > > > lot of things that can fail with DPDK.
> > > > It is a great, but also fast moving and bleeding edge project.
> > > > So testing and patching is needed - more packages "Consuming" the
> > > > library
> > > > and thereby more diverse test exposure help exactly with that.
> > > >
> > > > The three of us kind of agreed on the following rough schedule:
> > > > - (Now / Luca) Requesting upload permissions for DPDK
> > > > - (Now / Me) Completing testing and fixing DPDK packaging in ubuntu
> > > > - (11th of May / All of us) start a kick off for packaging DPDK in
> > > > Debian
> > > >
> >
> > It would be great to have DPDK on Debian. I can upload the packages, and
> > maybe co-maintain.
> >

> Hi Santiago,
> so far Luca was planned to maintain it, but I'd assume he is no objecting
> to a co-maintainer.
> Especially if the co-maintainer can help with the initial upload.
> It might be good to know about a lot of details in advance out of the scope
> of actually uploading it.
> We would be happy if you join us in our work even before the initial upload
> takes place.

No objections at all, more help is always welcome :-)

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760:

[Christian Ehrhardt]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
>  wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
> >  wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> > >  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a
> > > > Debian user
> > > > for a couple of decades now. I've even been an uploader, years
> > > > ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi C.J.,
> > > great to hear that you want to help as well - I'm sure it will get
> > > great.
> > > We are Currently three people:
> > > - Luca Boccassi - DM, already applied for package upload permissions
> > > - Martin Thiago - Experienced in experimenting with
> > > DPDK/Debian/Ubuntu,
> > > giving us a broad testing&usage range
> > > - Myself - Packaging DPDK for Ubuntu, Testing DPDK with integrated
> > > tests
> > > and Openvswitch-DPDK
> > >
> > > You would be a great addition to our group - more Debian experience
> > > will
> > > surely help.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:
> > > >
> > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516
> > > >
> > > > These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the
> > > > DPDK
> > > > packages are good.
> > > >
> > >
> > > From what I learned with packaging DPDK 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04 there
> > > are a
> > > lot of things that can fail with DPDK.
> > > It is a great, but also fast moving and bleeding edge project.
> > > So testing and patching is needed - more packages "Consuming" the
> > > library
> > > and thereby more diverse test exposure help exactly with that.
> > >
> > > The three of us kind of agreed on the following rough schedule:
> > > - (Now / Luca) Requesting upload permissions for DPDK
> > > - (Now / Me) Completing testing and fixing DPDK packaging in ubuntu
> > > - (11th of May / All of us) start a kick off for packaging DPDK in
> > > Debian
> > >
>
> It would be great to have DPDK on Debian. I can upload the packages, and
> maybe co-maintain.
>

Hi Santiago,
so far Luca was planned to maintain it, but I'd assume he is no objecting
to a co-maintainer.
Especially if the co-maintainer can help with the initial upload.
It might be good to know about a lot of details in advance out of the scope
of actually uploading it.
We would be happy if you join us in our work even before the initial upload
takes place.


> Would you like to have it on git.debian.org collab-maint?
>

As we had so many different participating parties and needed a place as
initial boilerplate we are currently at:
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Deb_dpdk

There is a lot of preparation, packaging and discussion already ongoing,
with a bit of slack until DPDK 16.07 will be released.
Please feel free to join our weekly meeting as referred on that Wiki page I
linked above.

>From there we will move into Debian/Ubuntu and also contribue to upstream
dpdk to lower the delta we have to maintain.

Kind Regards,
Christian


>
> Santiago
>

Bug#815760:

[Santiago Ruano Rincón]

Hi all,

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:34:11 +0100 Luca Boccassi
 wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt
>  wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >

[...]

> > > > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
> > >
> > > I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a
> > > Debian user
> > > for a couple of decades now. I've even been an uploader, years
> > > ago.
> > >
> >
> > Hi C.J.,
> > great to hear that you want to help as well - I'm sure it will get
> > great.
> > We are Currently three people:
> > - Luca Boccassi - DM, already applied for package upload permissions
> > - Martin Thiago - Experienced in experimenting with
> > DPDK/Debian/Ubuntu,
> > giving us a broad testing&usage range
> > - Myself - Packaging DPDK for Ubuntu, Testing DPDK with integrated
> > tests
> > and Openvswitch-DPDK
> >
> > You would be a great addition to our group - more Debian experience
> > will
> > surely help.
> >
> >
> > > I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:
> > >
> > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516
> > >
> > > These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the
> > > DPDK
> > > packages are good.
> > >
> >
> > From what I learned with packaging DPDK 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04 there
> > are a
> > lot of things that can fail with DPDK.
> > It is a great, but also fast moving and bleeding edge project.
> > So testing and patching is needed - more packages "Consuming" the
> > library
> > and thereby more diverse test exposure help exactly with that.
> >
> > The three of us kind of agreed on the following rough schedule:
> > - (Now / Luca) Requesting upload permissions for DPDK
> > - (Now / Me) Completing testing and fixing DPDK packaging in ubuntu
> > - (11th of May / All of us) start a kick off for packaging DPDK in
> > Debian
> >

It would be great to have DPDK on Debian. I can upload the packages, and
maybe co-maintain. 
Would you like to have it on git.debian.org collab-maint?

Cheers!

Santiago


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#815760:

[Luca Boccassi]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:38:58 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt 
 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier  > wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt 
> > wrote:
> >
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> > > But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> > > co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> > > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
> >
> > I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a Debian user
> > for a couple of decades now.  I've even been an uploader, years ago.
> >
> 
> Hi C.J.,
> great to hear that you want to help as well - I'm sure it will get great.
> We are Currently three people:
> - Luca Boccassi - DM, already applied for package upload permissions
> - Martin Thiago - Experienced in experimenting with DPDK/Debian/Ubuntu,
> giving us a broad testing&usage range
> - Myself - Packaging DPDK for Ubuntu, Testing DPDK with integrated tests
> and Openvswitch-DPDK
> 
> You would be a great addition to our group - more Debian experience will
> surely help.
> 
> 
> > I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:
> >
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516
> >
> > These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the DPDK
> > packages are good.
> >
> 
> From what I learned with packaging DPDK 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04 there are a
> lot of things that can fail with DPDK.
> It is a great, but also fast moving and bleeding edge project.
> So testing and patching is needed - more packages "Consuming" the library
> and thereby more diverse test exposure help exactly with that.
> 
> The three of us kind of agreed on the following rough schedule:
> - (Now / Luca) Requesting upload permissions for DPDK
> - (Now / Me) Completing testing and fixing DPDK packaging in ubuntu
> - (11th of May / All of us) start a kick off for packaging DPDK in Debian
> 
> The next DPDK release changes a lot regarding the build system and the
> shared library handling, so on one hand IMHO it would avoid a lot of
> restructuring if we start with 16.04 release.
> But OTOH consuming packages might need older DPDK API / shared library
> handling versions that might no more be supported.
> But among many other things - that is one of the bigger topics we want to
> discuss and agree on the kick-off.
> 
> I hope that schedule works for you and it would be great to add you to the
> kick-off and our later work.

Hi,

Some good news: Andreas Beckmann [CC'ed] has kindly agreed to whitelist
me for DPDK uploads. Unfortunately one cannot be whitelisted for a
package that is not uploaded yet (since it is unknown to the system),
but he proposed to do the very first upload to the NEW queue, and then
whitelist my PGP key so that I can take over afterwards. Thanks again
for the help Andreas!

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760:

[Christian Ehrhardt]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:41 AM, C.J. Collier  wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt 
> wrote:
>

[...]


> > But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> > co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
>
> I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a Debian user
> for a couple of decades now.  I've even been an uploader, years ago.
>

Hi C.J.,
great to hear that you want to help as well - I'm sure it will get great.
We are Currently three people:
- Luca Boccassi - DM, already applied for package upload permissions
- Martin Thiago - Experienced in experimenting with DPDK/Debian/Ubuntu,
giving us a broad testing&usage range
- Myself - Packaging DPDK for Ubuntu, Testing DPDK with integrated tests
and Openvswitch-DPDK

You would be a great addition to our group - more Debian experience will
surely help.


> I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516
>
> These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the DPDK
> packages are good.
>

>From what I learned with packaging DPDK 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04 there are a
lot of things that can fail with DPDK.
It is a great, but also fast moving and bleeding edge project.
So testing and patching is needed - more packages "Consuming" the library
and thereby more diverse test exposure help exactly with that.

The three of us kind of agreed on the following rough schedule:
- (Now / Luca) Requesting upload permissions for DPDK
- (Now / Me) Completing testing and fixing DPDK packaging in ubuntu
- (11th of May / All of us) start a kick off for packaging DPDK in Debian

The next DPDK release changes a lot regarding the build system and the
shared library handling, so on one hand IMHO it would avoid a lot of
restructuring if we start with 16.04 release.
But OTOH consuming packages might need older DPDK API / shared library
handling versions that might no more be supported.
But among many other things - that is one of the bigger topics we want to
discuss and agree on the kick-off.

I hope that schedule works for you and it would be great to add you to the
kick-off and our later work.
I'll invite you to the kick-off.

P.S. I hope not - but if you are in a hurry with the FD.io packaging let me
know on IRC and we can discuss our options.

Bug#815760:

[C.J. Collier]

 On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt 
wrote:
> Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: dpdk
>   Version : 2.2
>   Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
> * URL : http://dpdk.org/
>  * License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2
(kernel components)
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description : Data Plane Development Kit
>
...
> But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.

I'm interested in co-maintaining this package, and I've been a Debian user
for a couple of decades now.  I've even been an uploader, years ago.

I've submitted an ITP for the FD.io group of packages:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819516

These depend on DPDK, so I've got an interest in making sure the DPDK
packages are good.

Cheers,

C.J.

Bug#815760: Your mail

[Christian Ehrhardt]

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Luca Boccassi 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 08:00 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Luca Boccassi 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt <
> pael...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>

[...]

> > I work at Brocade, and we maintain a dpdk package internally too. I'd be
> > > happy to try and help as best as I can with the packaging, and with
> > > sponsoring the uploads!
> > >
> >
> > Hi Luca,
> > great that you would like to join us.
> > Martin also offered to help and he is already working with the Ubuntu
> > package of DPDK as of now.
> > I think we would be enough of a group to have discussions, test, assist
> and
> > review for each other and so on.
>
> Perfect! Is the packaging in git somewhere?
>

You can follow the evolution of the Ubuntu packaging at this git for now
https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-server/dpdk/?h=ubuntu-xenial-to-dpdk2.2

[...]


> > I hope that would work for you, but I really see no reason to hurry now
> > just to upload patches every other day.
> > If that works for you let me know and I'd invite you two to a kick-of
> > session in a hangout around that time.
>
> Sounds great for me :-) A few of my colleagues work on the internal
> dpdk, I'll ask if they would like to help as well.
>
> I'll ask to be whitelisted and report back once I have news.


Great, I'll invite for a kickoff in early May then and anybody else can let
me know to be added.

Bug#815760: Your mail

[Luca Boccassi]

On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 08:00 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt 
> > wrote:
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> > > It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share
> > the
> > > work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.
> > >
> > > But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> > > co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> > > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
> >
> > Hello Christian,
> >
> > Thanks for doing the packaging work, it looks great!
> >
> > I work at Brocade, and we maintain a dpdk package internally too. I'd be
> > happy to try and help as best as I can with the packaging, and with
> > sponsoring the uploads!
> >
> 
> Hi Luca,
> great that you would like to join us.
> Martin also offered to help and he is already working with the Ubuntu
> package of DPDK as of now.
> I think we would be enough of a group to have discussions, test, assist and
> review for each other and so on.

Perfect! Is the packaging in git somewhere?

> > The only small issue is that I am a DM, not a DD, so I would need a DD
> > to do the one-time whitelist of my pgp key for this package on the ftp
> > first, and then I'd be able to sponsor all the uploads.
> >
> 
> That really sounds like a plan.
> I'm currently heads down on testing and flushing out various issues with
> DPDK towards the release of Ubuntu 16.04.
> And there I find & fix issues all the time right now.
> Therefore I'd suggest we wait until it reached some kind of stability and
> then work together to transfer on that base to Debian.
> 
> In terms of timing I'd suggest the following
> 1. You request being whitelisted for that package
> 2. I'll finish up the DPDK-2.2 packaging and test/fix phase for Ubuntu 16.04
> 3. In early May we would then do a kick of with the three of us (and
> whoever else wants to join)
> There we can assert the current state of DPDK (constraints to libs, new
> dpdk 16.04 build changes, ...) and its packaging, and make a plan on
> who/how exactly what to do.
> 
> I hope that would work for you, but I really see no reason to hurry now
> just to upload patches every other day.
> If that works for you let me know and I'd invite you two to a kick-of
> session in a hangout around that time.

Sounds great for me :-) A few of my colleagues work on the internal
dpdk, I'll ask if they would like to help as well.

I'll ask to be whitelisted and report back once I have news.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Brocade Communications Systems


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760: Your mail

[Christian Ehrhardt]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Luca Boccassi  wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt 
> wrote:


[...]


> > It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share
> the
> > work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.
> >
> > But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> > co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> > I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
>
> Hello Christian,
>
> Thanks for doing the packaging work, it looks great!
>
> I work at Brocade, and we maintain a dpdk package internally too. I'd be
> happy to try and help as best as I can with the packaging, and with
> sponsoring the uploads!
>

Hi Luca,
great that you would like to join us.
Martin also offered to help and he is already working with the Ubuntu
package of DPDK as of now.
I think we would be enough of a group to have discussions, test, assist and
review for each other and so on.


> The only small issue is that I am a DM, not a DD, so I would need a DD
> to do the one-time whitelist of my pgp key for this package on the ftp
> first, and then I'd be able to sponsor all the uploads.
>

That really sounds like a plan.
I'm currently heads down on testing and flushing out various issues with
DPDK towards the release of Ubuntu 16.04.
And there I find & fix issues all the time right now.
Therefore I'd suggest we wait until it reached some kind of stability and
then work together to transfer on that base to Debian.

In terms of timing I'd suggest the following
1. You request being whitelisted for that package
2. I'll finish up the DPDK-2.2 packaging and test/fix phase for Ubuntu 16.04
3. In early May we would then do a kick of with the three of us (and
whoever else wants to join)
There we can assert the current state of DPDK (constraints to libs, new
dpdk 16.04 build changes, ...) and its packaging, and make a plan on
who/how exactly what to do.

I hope that would work for you, but I really see no reason to hurry now
just to upload patches every other day.
If that works for you let me know and I'd invite you two to a kick-of
session in a hangout around that time.

Kind Regards,

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

Bug#815760: Your mail

[Luca Boccassi]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:51:20 +0100 Christian Ehrhardt  wrote:
> Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> * Package name: dpdk
>   Version : 2.2
>   Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
> * URL : http://dpdk.org/
> * License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2 (kernel components)
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description : Data Plane Development Kit
> 
> 1. What is DPDK useful for
> DPDK is a set of libraries and drivers for fast packet processing. It
> was designed to run on any processors. The first supported CPU was Intel
> x86 and it is now extended to IBM Power 8, EZchip TILE-Gx and ARM. It
> runs mostly in Linux userland. A FreeBSD port is available for a subset
> of DPDK features.
> 
> Main libraries
> - multicore framework
> - huge page memory
> - ring buffers
> - poll-mode drivers
> 
> Usage
> These libraries can be used to:
> - receive and send packets within the minimum number of CPU cycles
>   (usually less than 80 cycles)
> - develop fast packet capture algorithms (tcpdump-like)
> - run third-party fast path stacks
> Some packet processing functions have been benchmarked up to hundreds
> million frames per second, using 64-byte packets with a PCIe NIC.
> 
> 
> 2. Maintenance Plan
> I'm currently maintaining dpdk for ubuntu (launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpdk)
> and the existing packaging should be suitable for Debian also.
> 
> It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share the
> work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.
> 
> But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.

Hello Christian,

Thanks for doing the packaging work, it looks great!

I work at Brocade, and we maintain a dpdk package internally too. I'd be
happy to try and help as best as I can with the packaging, and with
sponsoring the uploads!

The only small issue is that I am a DM, not a DD, so I would need a DD
to do the one-time whitelist of my pgp key for this package on the ftp
first, and then I'd be able to sponsor all the uploads.

If you would like to accept my help, I will ask for whitelisting. Let me
know :-)

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Brocade Communications Systems


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#815760: (no subject)

[Christian Ehrhardt]

Hi Martin Thiago,
Thanks for you agreement and your sniff test via the re-compile.

Tiago (I have to watch the "h" to keep you distinct :-) ) and I were in
contact.
For now I'm flushing out many issues in dpdk itself and our code bundled in
packaging towards Xenial release.
Also DPDK upstream makes some major changes to e.g. the combined library
linking which will affect packaging a lot.
So we agreed that we will take a deeper look at it a bit later this year to
avoid re-doing it all over so soon after.

For now - open to all - we are still looking for an experienced DD to help
us then and in general for someone with upload rights.



Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ 
wrote:

> On 24 February 2016 at 07:51, Christian Ehrhardt 
> wrote:
>
>> Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
>> Package: wnpp
>> Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> * Package name: dpdk
>>   Version : 2.2
>>   Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
>> * URL : http://dpdk.org/
>> * License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2 (kernel components)
>>   Programming Lang: C
>>   Description : Data Plane Development Kit
>>
>> 1. What is DPDK useful for
>> DPDK is a set of libraries and drivers for fast packet processing. It
>> was designed to run on any processors. The first supported CPU was Intel
>> x86 and it is now extended to IBM Power 8, EZchip TILE-Gx and ARM. It
>> runs mostly in Linux userland. A FreeBSD port is available for a subset
>> of DPDK features.
>>
>> Main libraries
>> - multicore framework
>> - huge page memory
>> - ring buffers
>> - poll-mode drivers
>>
>> Usage
>> These libraries can be used to:
>> - receive and send packets within the minimum number of CPU cycles
>>   (usually less than 80 cycles)
>> - develop fast packet capture algorithms (tcpdump-like)
>> - run third-party fast path stacks
>> Some packet processing functions have been benchmarked up to hundreds
>> million frames per second, using 64-byte packets with a PCIe NIC.
>>
>>
>> 2. Maintenance Plan
>> I'm currently maintaining dpdk for ubuntu (
>> launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpdk)
>> and the existing packaging should be suitable for Debian also.
>>
>> It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share
>> the
>> work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.
>>
>> But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
>> co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
>> I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
>>
>>
> It will be great to see DPDK on Debian Main too!
>
> I have re-compiled this source DPDK Debian package, from Ubuntu, on Jessie
> and it works.
>
> Cheers!
> Thiago
>

Bug#815760: (no subject)

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

On 24 February 2016 at 07:51, Christian Ehrhardt  wrote:

> Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
> Package: wnpp
> Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: dpdk
>   Version : 2.2
>   Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
> * URL : http://dpdk.org/
> * License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2 (kernel components)
>   Programming Lang: C
>   Description : Data Plane Development Kit
>
> 1. What is DPDK useful for
> DPDK is a set of libraries and drivers for fast packet processing. It
> was designed to run on any processors. The first supported CPU was Intel
> x86 and it is now extended to IBM Power 8, EZchip TILE-Gx and ARM. It
> runs mostly in Linux userland. A FreeBSD port is available for a subset
> of DPDK features.
>
> Main libraries
> - multicore framework
> - huge page memory
> - ring buffers
> - poll-mode drivers
>
> Usage
> These libraries can be used to:
> - receive and send packets within the minimum number of CPU cycles
>   (usually less than 80 cycles)
> - develop fast packet capture algorithms (tcpdump-like)
> - run third-party fast path stacks
> Some packet processing functions have been benchmarked up to hundreds
> million frames per second, using 64-byte packets with a PCIe NIC.
>
>
> 2. Maintenance Plan
> I'm currently maintaining dpdk for ubuntu (
> launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpdk)
> and the existing packaging should be suitable for Debian also.
>
> It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share the
> work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.
>
> But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
> co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
> I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.
>
>
It will be great to see DPDK on Debian Main too!

I have re-compiled this source DPDK Debian package, from Ubuntu, on Jessie
and it works.

Cheers!
Thiago

Bug#815760: (no subject)

[Tiago Ilieve]

retitle 815760 ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
thanks

Hi Christian,

I'm setting the title for your ITP because you left the "Subject:"
line in the message body.

As I'm also not a DD, I can't help you with the sponsorship. Hope you
find someone interested!

Regards,
Tiago.

-- 
Tiago "Myhro" Ilieve
Blog: https://blog.myhro.info/
GitHub: https://github.com/myhro
LinkedIn: https://br.linkedin.com/in/myhro
Montes Claros - MG, Brasil

Processed: Re: Bug#815760: (no subject)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> retitle 815760 ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
Bug #815760 [wnpp] (no subject)
Changed Bug title to 'ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit' from '(no 
subject)'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
815760: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815760
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#815760: (no subject)

[Christian Ehrhardt]

Subject: ITP: dpdk -- Data Plane Development Kit
Package: wnpp
Owner: Christian Ehrhardt 
Severity: wishlist

* Package name: dpdk
  Version : 2.2
  Upstream Author : Thomas Monjalon 
* URL : http://dpdk.org/
* License : BSD (core libs), GPLv2 (kernel components)
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : Data Plane Development Kit

1. What is DPDK useful for
DPDK is a set of libraries and drivers for fast packet processing. It
was designed to run on any processors. The first supported CPU was Intel
x86 and it is now extended to IBM Power 8, EZchip TILE-Gx and ARM. It
runs mostly in Linux userland. A FreeBSD port is available for a subset
of DPDK features.

Main libraries
- multicore framework
- huge page memory
- ring buffers
- poll-mode drivers

Usage
These libraries can be used to:
- receive and send packets within the minimum number of CPU cycles
  (usually less than 80 cycles)
- develop fast packet capture algorithms (tcpdump-like)
- run third-party fast path stacks
Some packet processing functions have been benchmarked up to hundreds
million frames per second, using 64-byte packets with a PCIe NIC.


2. Maintenance Plan
I'm currently maintaining dpdk for ubuntu (launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpdk)
and the existing packaging should be suitable for Debian also.

It'd be great to have this packaged in Debian too, so that we can share the
work. I am looking for co-maintainers to help me with this.

But I'm not a Debian developer, so I'd like to have a more Debian centric
co-maintainer for a proper Debian expertise and opinion in all the work.
I'm also no DD, so sponsors will be needed.