[Debian-ha-maintainers] [Linux-ha-dev] [patch v2 6/6] Debian: remove ldconfig from heartbeat.{postrm, postinst}

[Lars Ellenberg]

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?

-- 
: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com

DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.