[Pkg-gridengine-devel] Status?

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Afif,

(I notice you've actually made it through NM now, so no need for my
sponsorship anymore -- congrats :-)

On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 01:32:38AM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> Hi, Wouter,
> 
> On السبت  5 آذار 2016 06:46, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> >What's the status on the updated packaging of gridengine? It's been a
> >while since I offered to sponsor an upload, if needs be, but you haven't
> >asked me yet. I'm guessing you feel that the packaging isn't where it
> >needs to be yet, but I'm not certain myself what needs to be done
> >(honestly, that's mainly because I haven't had much time to look at what
> >you've done so far).
> 
> In Dave's last review [1], he expressed concerns about how automatic
> upgrades could be handled. From his explanation, it seems that maintainer
> scripts need to be developed and tested.

AIUI from that mail, this is about libdb compatibility issues? I don't
think we should be too worried about that yet. Dumping the database to
some plain-text format in prerm seems like a good approach which should
allow for proper upgrades in the future, but we can decide not to do
anything in preinst or postinst until we actually move to a different
libdb version.

Certainly for an upload to experimental, this shouldn't be a blocker.

> I might say the same for automatic installation because, as of now,
> the installation does not set up the parallel environments.

Right. That could be more problematic.

> >Is there some TODO list of sorts that you could point me to? Failing
> >that, could you summarize what you think is still needed?  Not that it's
> >urgent or anything, but every day that the package isn't in unstable is
> >a day that it can't be tested by people who might find issues with it;
> >the longer you wait, the larger the risk of bugs remaining in the
> >package when the freeze happens...
> 
> As far as testing goes, I've built the package for jessie and have been
> using that at my site; I believe I've caught most of the RC issues and fixed
> them,

In my experience, the moment the package gets uploaded is when the real
RC issues appear...

> though I have not dealt with automatic upgrades.

That would be easier to do once the package is uploaded ;-)

> In any case, you make a good point. I think I can quickly get the package
> ready for upload to at least experimental. What are your thoughts on the
> upgradability issue [1]?

See above.

> By the way, I closely follow this mailing list, so there's no need to
> explicitly CC me (but I don't mind either way).

Well, there was in this case, because my mail bounced since I used the
wrong From: header. Point taken, though ;-)

-- 
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
       people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
       and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
 -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12