[Pkg-xen-devel] Re: [Pkg-xen-changes] r70 - trunk/xen-3.0/debian

[Ralph Passgang]

Am Sonntag, 5. März 2006 18:42 schrieb Bastian Blank:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 07:43:23PM +0100, Ralph Passgang wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 4. März 2006 13:45 schrieb Julien Danjou:
> > > Bastian, why did you remove this package in your last commit?
> >
> > I would like to have an explanation for that too. We believe we don't
> > need to remove this package (at least now where all problems with
> > upgrading from older versions have been fixed) and it helps to have a
> > setup that is easy to setup for new users (because they only need to run:
> > "apt-get install xen") and even it helps for upgrading a xen2 setup to
> > xen3.
>
> I don't see a dependency against a kernel nor a check if it will boot at
> all (this is impossible). A valid upgrade procedure have no point where
> it can make the system unbootable. The same problem makes it currently
> impossible to do automatic kernel upgrades from sarge.

I don't get that.

providing kernel images is not the job of the pkg-xen group. And besides that. 
I don't think a depenendcy for a kernel is really what we want. Of course we 
would like to have kernel images available within the debian archive, so that 
it's easy for the user to install a kernel, but we also want that the user 
can compile his own kernel, so we should use a dependency for a kernel at 
all.

Btw. (luckily) the whole debian distribution doesn't depend on a kernel image 
anywhere! You can install a complete system without a bootloader or a kernel 
installed. This is often needed for virtualized systems, or do you install a 
kernel in a domU? :)

so why should xen depend on a kernel image? I don't see a reasion for that.

> > Maybe there also other solutions, what about renaming the "xen" package
> > to "xen-3.0" and providing "xen" within "xen-3.0"?
>
> What do you want to achieve?

forget it, I thought you maybe misliked the xen package because of this was 
more or less the last package without the major version in the packagename.

> > Please explain at least why you think this is wrong. We are a team, so we
> > should discuss such stuff. I also tried to explain why I added the xen
> > package again in my svn comment, please also use this svn log more. just
> > "updated control" is a absolout useless comment, because the information
> > which files you updated is obvious.
>
> It was targeted to another tree.
>
> > for example there are two entries for "xen-utils-3.0" in debian/control
> > now.
>
> This is clearly wrong.

yeah? Haven't you noticed that two people on this list already said so. You 
maybe should check that again. Of course there are two entries for 
xen-utils-3.0 in debian/control now. If you fix that, please remove the first 
entry, not the second one (because it has better dependencies).

> > Or why do you cross-compile hypervisors?
>
> There is nothing cross-compiled there.

how do you call it, when you compile a amd64 hypervisor on a i386 box?

> > If you use a 64bit hypervisor you have to use a 64bit dom0 kernel and you
> > have to use 64bit version of xen userspace tools.
>
> Bah, they really have allignment issues in some struct.

I am not a c-guru in any form and I don't care why a 64bit hypervisor is not 
really controllable with the 32bit version of the userspace tools, but 
because thats the way it is, we shouldn't provide a 64bit hypervisor for the 
normal i386 architecture (and at least for me it looks like this is happening 
now).

> > And the rules files seems to be broken in some places, because when I try
> > to compile xen with the debian dir with all svn commits from you, I have
> > this error at the end:
>
> This are the wrong install files.

You changed the rules + control files, so please fix everything else that is 
needed to have a buildable version again. It takes a lot more time for others 
to fix such things, because your changes were to massive to understand them 
directly. You should know what is happening now and why, so please go ahead 
with the .install files.

> Bastian

To be honest, I don't know if I really like the new version, but I want to 
give you the chance to provide a working version again and then we can check 
how good the resulting packages are. But in future PLEASE discuss such 
changes a bit more before just applying...

--Ralph