Hi Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:27:30 Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: >> Is this package still usefull? > > Perhaps it is not too useful right now but I'm planning to update it for > kernel 3.16 eventually... > >> Both the ceph filesystem module and the >> rbd module are included in the upstream kernel and AFAICS regularly >> updated. > > I would never needed "ceph-dkms" in first place if Ceph were maintained in > kernel well enough... Hm, that surprises me. But I'm not too familiar with it as I'm mostly using the rbd backend to qemu. But before writing the above sentence I compared the code here https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client to the upstream linux kernel and could not find any differences. But then maybe I did not look at the right branches or the right repository at all. > >> Maybe it's better to just remove this package. > > What's the rush? "ceph-dkms" is in "experimental" only... I agree there is no rush at all. If there is a good use case for the package and there is code around which is more up to date than what's included in 3.16 I'm all in favor of keeping the package. I just think there is not much point in keeping a package that's not updated and obsolete. > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:29:22 Ken Dreyer wrote: >> I was wondering the same. Could Debian users just rely on the kernel >> module in the main kernel package? > > That's pretty much the current situation -- we have "ceph-dkms" only in > "experimental" so when needed we could test fixes promptly (or rapidly deploy > hot-fixes when necessary). I tried to rely on kernel modules in main kernel > package and failed miserably -- as consequence I had to make "ceph-dkms" to > test and deploy critical fixes. We do not encourage "ceph-dkms" and it is > available only to "advanced" users who know about "experimental" suite. > Package even have a note that it is not suitable for release... It was not obvious to me that ceph-dkms is intended to always stay in experimental. If it's not intended to ever go into unstable/testing/stable I see no problem with the current state. If things really fail miserably I would prefer to have the relevant patches in a stable kernel update though. AFAIK the Debian kernel maintainers are open to adding backported fixes that are included into the upstream kernel in later versions. Gaudenz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
