On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Frank Zhang <[email protected]> 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? >> >> - chip >> >> On Oct 8, 2012, at 7:04 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Frank Zhang <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> Edison asked me last Friday if I could take a look at applying this >> >>> commit for Debian as well: >> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- >> >>> >> cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=595ab41de6bee4115300c046c17628934cb4a3 >> >>> 5 >> >>> a >> >>> >> >>> I'm looking into this right now and I noticed we don't even package >> >>> the AWSAPI files for Debian? I didn't notice since I never worked >> >>> with this API before. >> >>> >> >>> I checked out the cloud.spec file and I noticed: >> >>> >> >>> %pre aws-api >> >>> id %{name} > /dev/null 2>&1 || /usr/sbin/useradd -M -c "CloudStack >> >>> unprivileged user" \ >> >>> -r -s /bin/sh -d %{_sharedstatedir}/%{name}/management >> >>> %{name}|| true >> >>> >> >>> # set max file descriptors for cloud user to 4096 sed -i /"cloud >> >>> hard nofile"/d /etc/security/limits.conf sed -i /"cloud soft >> >>> nofile"/d /etc/security/limits.conf echo "cloud hard nofile 4096" >> >> >>> /etc/security/limits.conf echo "cloud soft nofile 4096" >> >> >>> /etc/security/limits.conf rm - rf %{_localstatedir}/cache/%{name} # >> >>> user harcoded here, also hardcoded on wscript >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Here we have a RPM package touching the "limits.conf" file on a >> >>> system without notifying the sysadmin? What if this file was managed >> >>> by for example Puppet? >> >>> >> >>> Imho we should _not_ these files but add a remark to the >> >>> documentation or throw a warning somewhere. >> >>> >> >>> I'll start packaging the AWSAPI files for Debian, but I'm not >> >>> planning on adding this to any postinst/preinst files for the Debian >> packages. >> >>> >> >>> I'm assuming this is some sort of legacy from the past somewhere? >> >>> >> >>> One question remains though: How come that QA never picked up that >> >>> there is no Debian packaging at all for AWSAPI? Or did I miss this? >> >>> >> >>> I found CLOUDSTACK-257, but that doesn't seem to mention anything >> >>> about Debian or Ubuntu? >> >> >> >> The way packaging AWSAPI is definitely wrong, it's there only because >> >> the tight schedule forced me to use this dirty hack at that moment. >> >> >> >> %pre %post should never be used to install files as any changes in >> >> these sections are out of control RPM system, it will leave stale data in >> system when doing "rpm -e" or "yum erase". >> >> >> >> So for Debian please forget these nasty hooks, just package them as what >> we do normally for packaging. >> > >> > >> > We shouldn't be in such a rush that we have nasty hacks. >> > Lets fix it properly. >> > I am also concerned about the symlinks we create in %post for awsapi. >> > Lets fix those both. >> > >> > --David >> > >
