[Pkg-xen-devel] Patches for Xen 3.1 packaging

[Ralph Passgang]

Zitat von Peter Siering <lists at siering.org>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 23.05.2007 um 19:58 schrieb Ralph Passgang:
>
>>
>>> I did not do any
>>> modifications regarding versioning - something that changes with Xen
>>> 3.1. Comments are welcome.
>>
>> hmmm? I am not sure if I get that correctly... You changed the   
>> version in the
>> changelog (of course), so that was obviously not what you meant. Do you mean
>> the documents like README.Debian and so on? Or is there anything else that
>> needs to be changed for 3.1?
>
> May be I missed a version number somewhere, but that was not the point:
> It was just a hint at the choosen version scheme Debian Xen packages
> used so far (with two subrevision numbers like -0-2 instead of just the
> usual one linke -2. The Xen people changed their versioning with Xen
> 3.1, may be that should be adopted by the Debian packages? (I tried to
> drop one subrevision but that broke the package build process.)

I don't understand the "-0-2" numbering myself, but I realized that I  
don't need to know everything. I can live with that particular  
ignorance :)

I haven't followed the xen mailinglist for some months now. Have they  
announced to change their versioning? Otherwise a 3.1.1 could be  
released in some time and we shouldn't drop the last part of the  
version number.

>> @Pkg-Xen-Team: I think we shouldn't release xen 3.0.4 anymore, so   
>> is it ok if
>> I commit Peters changes (and maybe some more, if needed) to svn after I have
>> tested them? I would like to see xen 3.1 in debian unstable anytime in near
>> future.
>
> Someone at the Xen mailinglist complained with no detail, that the
> 3.1-doc-package has issues. For me it looks fine. May be you will see
> the problem?

The xen-docs-3.1 seems fine. But I haven't read all the stuff packaged  
in the docs package. Maybe there is some old docs included. Have you  
an exact describtion of the problem the user is reporting?

> BTW: Some questions regarding the packages:
>
> On the first package build the process misses two directories
> (debian/stamps and debian/build), after creating them by hand
> everything runs fine. I just call the targets setup and binary - did I
> miss something?

I am the wrong person to ask about the "special" packaging style that  
the xen packages are using. Bastian prepared the most of this.

I don't call the targets directly. I use "dpkg-buildpackage -b" for  
bulding binary packages and I don't have a problem with it.

> There is even a but report regarding this: The Debian Xen/kernel
> packages do not contain the blktap modules. What is the reason for
> this? (I did not find any discussion in the list archives.)

the kernel doesn't include a certain module? please ask on the debian  
kernel mailinglist. This pkg-xen team is _just_ packaging the  
hyervisor and the userspace tools.

> Thanks for the work of the team. After getting the idea behind the Xen
> packaging it works like a charm rebuilding new Xen upstream versions
> for Debian.

nice to hear :)

Now to the results of my xen3.1 tests from the past weekend:

First of all, the patches you are suppling are working great. The most  
stuff is already handled by these patches. But I needed to make some  
more changes to have a working version for me:

- added graphviz to build-depends-indep (xen-3.1)
- removed interpreter.dpatch (seems to be fixed in upstream) (xen-common)

I have packaged them for testing as well:

http://packages.debianbase.de/sources/i386/xen3.1
http://packages.debianbase.de/<etch|lenny|sid>/i386/xen3.1

But there is a bit more work to do...

Debian unstable uses "texlive" as packagename for tetex. For now it  
doesn't brake xen3.1 on unstable, but it might in future. We should  
change these dependencies to texlive (maybe with "tetex" as  
alternative).

I hope this also fixes the problem, that on debian unstable way to  
many packages are installed as build-dependencies:

|| 0 upgraded, 128 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
|| Need to get 346MB of archives.
|| After unpacking 736MB of additional disk space will be used.

On lenny and etch (where tetex is still tetex) there is the still  
normal situation:

|| 0 upgraded, 92 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
|| Need to get 92.5MB of archives.
|| After unpacking 297MB of additional disk space will be used.

> 700MB to fetch from inet, just to compile xen on sid? this is not cool ;-P

@Bastian: What about Kernel Patches. Is there a new kernel-patch for  
xen 3.1 available that can be integrated into the linux-2.6.20  
kernels? I know that the old xen-kernel works with the new hypervisor,  
but normally also the kernel part of xen gets better with each  
version, so that we might think of a new xen-kernel for debian as well.

any ideas? comments?

> Peter

--Ralph

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFGWB/MoSFr3dtMR4IRAgFKAJ96MitDmXuD32CMxevuQ51BorOGyACePIN4
> ccXZztjzrPwj6tf5D0t7RfE=
> =i3xX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----