[Bug 527488] Review Request: drbd - drbd tools

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527488





--- Comment #41 from LINBIT <partner at linbit.com>  2009-10-15 15:38:06 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> As one of the sponsor members I want to ask some questions before
> someone (including) me can start review:
> 
> - Would you explain why non-arch-independent files under /usr/lib/%{name}
>   cannot be moved to %{_datadir}?

They are arch-independent. All that gets installed in that directory is a
number of shell scripts that are provided for drbd's userland callouts (which
it fires in a number of situations, such as detecting split brain or becoming a
synchronization target). Fabio and I have discussed this issue here; please see
comment #16.

> - Would you explain why you want to keep "%bcond_with km" part 
>   on the spec file which seems completely unneeded on Fedora 
>   ( according to your comments )?

Well for one thing it's positively needed for this package review, as the drbd
backport is not in the Fedora kernel as yet. :) Fabio has pointed out (in
comment #5 and comment #24, among others) that building the kernel module is
irrelevant for Fedora -- but that other packages do contain userland that is
expected to interface with a kernel feature that's not in Fedora.

The alternative would be to put the kernel module build setup in a separate
spec, and making that available outside of Fedora -- IMHO that's clearly an
inferior approach in terms of accessibility.

>   Removing parts which are not needed for Fedora will make the spec
>   file more readable and preferred.
>   ( And I think anyway this "%bcond_with km" part is completely
>     broken because we don't ensure that the kernel version of
>     the build server and of the host that the rebuilt binary rpm
>     is to be used is the same.

That's actually irrelevant; we can build the userland on any kernel, it doesn't
need to match that of the kernel module build.

>   For example while F-12 kernel is
>     now 2.6.31.1, the build server to build F-12 rpms uses
>     2.6.18 kernel: see the build.log of your comment 33)

Yes. Again, irrelevant to the userland build. Users can always locally build
the kernel module from the source rpm. And don't need to build anything else.

> - Similarly, would you explain why you want to keep
>   %if %{without udev} part on Fedora?

Because users who rebuild my choose not to use the drbd udev integration
scripts at all? We default to what seems sensible (to us), that is, use udev,
but there's no reason to force this upon users, so they can and will disable
this if they see fit.

> - Please remove duplicate file entries. Try:
>   $ rpm -qlp *rpm | sort | uniq -d
>   This will show that some files are included in multiple rpms.  

Correct, those crm-fence-peer scripts slipped through. I'll fix that. Thanks!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.