Re: Proposal for pkg-dpdk

Edward Warnicke


I have added you to the 'Future Agenda' section for 2016-06-09:


On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote:
I think we discussed and clarified all open points in the last update to the wiki.

- rename to not conflict with pkg-* naming
- mailing list should be projectname[-dev] as usual
- clarify that this is not an alternative stable tree
- clarify that the intention is after maturing packaging to push most upstream to

That said, I would request us to be scheduled on the next TSC's meeting.
Please send me back if and when exactly we are scheduled so I can attend and respond to any immediate questions.

Kind Regards,
Christian Ehrhardt

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 9:40 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@...> wrote:



From: Christian Ehrhardt [mailto:christian.ehrhardt@...]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...>
Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@...>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@...>; Martinx - ????? <thiagocmartinsc@...>; tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; Damjan Marion <damarion@...>; pkg-dpdk-devel@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk


On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...> wrote:

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 21:24 +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf


> > You probably have noticed that the name of the directory is pkg/ not
> > rpm/:
> >
> > It means the packaging stuff for .deb are more than welcome.
> >
> > It really doesn't make sense to split DPDK and its packaging.
> +1 on this. I don't see a reason to split DPDK and its packaging.

Hello Tim and Thomas,

Thanks for the feedback! Personally, I think there would be no problem
in discussing having the packaging maintained into the main DPDK

However, what we are starting to work on is not just the base upon which
Debian/Ubuntu will build on - it's the actual final packaging that will
be uploaded on these distros by myself and Christian.




Great points Luca, chiming in here.

Looking at the discussion it seems I've chosen the wrong days for a short vacation :-)


I guess the point really is that these are multiple questions that are mixed here - and that stirs up the discussion more than needed:


1. is it right to host the generic portion of .deb packaging upstream inside the dpdk repo?

Yes it is and I guess we will do so, by contributing all that is generic eventually.

In fact a discussion about the details of that is already scheduled on our groups meeting.


2. Do Luca and me need separate repositories tracking for the "actual" Distribution releases - yes we always have and will.

Doing #1 will eventually reduce the delta between upstream and this per release packaging which is great.


3a. Does anybody on dpdk-dev want a huge back and forth on deb packaging until we settled how we do it?

3b. Does anybody on dpdk-dev want to wait with releases until we with dpdk and all consuming packages catched up so we can release from there?

I guess both are clearly no.


Seeing the discussion I think we should try to make these points - probably especially #1 - clearer in the proposal.

I won't do that on my own, but instead wait for our next meeting to agree on it.



Thanks for following up on this. My main concern is over point #1. Clarifying that would definitely help to avoid confusion.



tsc mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.