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 ▪ [email protected]
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Chip Childers > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > 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
