cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ASF40][QA] AWSAPI packging remarks
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:47:05 GMT
Chip Childers ▪ Cloud Product Development ▪ SunGard Availability
Services ▪ 401 N. Broad St, Philadelphia, PA 19108 ▪ w: 215.446.1976 ▪
m: 267.250.0815 ▪ f: 267.262.8325 ▪ chip.childers@sungard.com


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Chip Childers
> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:07 PM
>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ASF40][QA] AWSAPI packging remarks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Frank Zhang <Frank.Zhang@citrix.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Not being a packaging guy, I don't have a strong opinion
about this issue.
>>>>> >>> However, is the consensus that we have enough of a problem
here that
>>>>> >>> it needs to be addressed prior to a release?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Personally I think it needn't.
>>>>> >> And I even  think awsapi should be a separate project, though
this is
>>>>> >> little off topic
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks Frank...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Any other opinions?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Anyone want to take a crack at resolving the AWS API packaging issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank:
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is what's the next version impact of leaving things like
the
>>>>> awsapi/client %post symlinks in place? Even if we correct this in 4.next
- will
>>>>> this clean up cleanly? I will try and look at ascertain what the impact
is
>>>>> tomorrow, but am happy to have someone beat me to it. If it is something
>>>>> that has little or no impact I am happy for us to just file bugs. If
it ends up
>>>>> being ugly, we should fix it before we try and release.
>>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> This is actually in current versions of CloudStack so, unlike the /cloud/agent
symlink, it's not something new created due to 4.0 release.  Because it's in previous versions
of CloudStack, we have to cleanup anyways if we decide not to use this "hack".  And removing
it would mean we need to add in code now to cleanup previous versions of links.  I think it's
better to file a bug and QA the proper cleanup and deploy in the next release.
>>>>
>>>> --Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah - I don't think it's so awful that it hurts us, but it does point
>>> to a problem in the AWSAPI code that we are getting around with a
>>> packaging hack.
>>> I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-293 to deal
>>> with this in 4.1 as I am worried that the changes will cause more
>>> uncertainty and potential problems than 'fixing it' at this stage in
>>> the release cycle.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> How about Wido's remark about us not packaging for Debian?
>
> Created Cloudstack-294
>
>>
>> And Frank noted that there are some steps that need to be documented.
>> Do we have a bug opened for the DOC team on them?
>
> CloudStack-295
>
> --David
>

You're a gentleman and a scholar.  Thanks.

Can someone please pick up CLOUDSTACK-295, and provide the required
documentation for the change?

And I noticed that David assigned Wido to CLOUDSTACK-294, but I know
that Wido is swamped with his $dayjob.  Any takers?

-chip

Mime
View raw message