[ Adding the jerasure maintainer to the CC ] Hi
Loic Dachary <l...@dachary.org> writes: > Hi, > > I'm co-maintainer of both jerasure and ceph. If the Debian jerasure > package was orphaned, I would be happy to step in and maintain it as a > standalone package. Jerasure was packaged without dialog with the > jerasure upstream and I can understand that keeping it in sync with > what ceph needs is significant work. Loic thanks for your offer to help with this. We definitively need some upstream assistence on this. IMO while the current approach to just use the bundled version is suboptimal, the previous approach to just unilaterally use a different version of jerasure than upstream is not good either. Currently ceph is AFAICS the only reverse dependency of jerasure. I don't know why Thomas packaged it in the first place. But if we want to keept the standalone package it might be the best for the ceph maintainers group to take over maintenance of the jerasure Debian package. I hope Thomas won't mind if we lower the burden for him a bit. The ceph Debian package git repository only contains very little reasoning about the change. James can you please expand on this a bit? In general I would prefer to have changes like this in their own commit and not mixed with unrelated changelog updates. Did the Hammer release not build with the jerasure in Debian or are you just afraid of unexpected results if the Debian package is built with another version of jerasure than what they ship in their source code? These would IMO be valid reasons to (temporarily) remove the patch. What's the ceph upstream position on splitting out jerasure and building against the standalone version? Is this considered supported? Are you willing to accept a patch which either uses a standalone jerausre for all builds or which introduces a configure flag to do so? As I understand the current situation the jerasure code is a submodule inside the ceph git repository and referencing a special v2-ceph branch. Is this going to stay like this or are you planing on integrating all this into jerasure and making this tight coupling obsolete. >From a Distribution packagers standpoint the current situation is less than optimal. I would very much prefer to not have third party libraries bundled in the source code. But without upstream cooperation this is hard to solve, more so as the bundled library is also a modified version of the original jerasure code. BTW all said above similarly applies to gf-complete. I think these two dependencies have to be resolved in the same manner. Gaudenz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
