On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Alex Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Nalley [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:07 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [ASF40][QA] AWSAPI packging remarks >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > 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? >>> >>> >>> 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? 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?
