Topics

Proposal for pkg-dpdk


Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
 

Dear FD.io TSC,
I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb based platforms.

It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is anything to be clarified.

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd


Jim Thompson
 

FreeBSD's package system is named pkg. 
(Yes, we plan to bring VPP to FreeBSD.)

I think pkg-dpdk needs a name change. 

deb-DPDK?

-- Jim

On May 25, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote:

Dear FD.io TSC,
I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb based platforms.

It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is anything to be clarified.

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Chris Luke
 

Only if the project really is going to be focused on .deb packaging, which feels like quite a narrow scope to me, but perhaps I am missing what’s involved.

 

Chris.

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Jim Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:50 AM
To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
Cc: tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; Damjan Marion <damarion@...>; Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...>; Thiago Martins <thiagocmartinsc@...>; pkg-dpdk-devel@...
Subject: Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk

 

FreeBSD's package system is named pkg. 

(Yes, we plan to bring VPP to FreeBSD.)

 

I think pkg-dpdk needs a name change. 


deb-DPDK?


-- Jim


On May 25, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote:

Dear FD.io TSC,

I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb based platforms.

 

It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is anything to be clarified.


Christian Ehrhardt

Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server

Canonical Ltd

_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Vincent JARDIN
 

It does not make sense, there is already a repo for pkg frameworks, please, update it if you need something:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg

It is going to duplicate the efforts.

What am I missing?

Le 25/05/2016 15:20, Luke, Chris a écrit :
Only if the project really is going to be focused on .deb packaging,
which feels like quite a narrow scope to me, but perhaps I am missing
what’s involved.

Chris.

*From:*tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] *On
Behalf Of *Jim Thompson
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:50 AM
*To:* Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
*Cc:* tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; Damjan Marion
<damarion@...>; Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...>; Thiago
Martins <thiagocmartinsc@...>; pkg-dpdk-devel@...
*Subject:* Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk

FreeBSD's package system is named pkg.

(Yes, we plan to bring VPP to FreeBSD.)

I think pkg-dpdk needs a name change.


deb-DPDK?


-- Jim


On May 25, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
<christian.ehrhardt@...
<mailto:christian.ehrhardt@...>> wrote:

Dear FD.io <http://fd.io> TSC,

I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb
based platforms.

Please see https://wiki.fd.io/view/Project_Proposals/pkg-dpdk for
details.

It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is
anything to be clarified.


Christian Ehrhardt

Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server

Canonical Ltd

_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@... <mailto:tsc@...>
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc



_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc@...>
 

Guys,

 Related to Debian / Ubuntu packaging, I would like to point a few things:


 1- Enable all available DPDK CPU options;

 2- If desired, include DKMS on the packaging, so the host's kernel modules can be included (like igb_uio, Xen dom0, etc) within the Debian package, while we can upgrade the kernel just as expected. A new package, lets say "dpdk-dkms" will be introduced.

 3- Simplify the "dev" packages, I mean, why do we have 2 packages: "dpdk-dev" and "libdpdk-dev"? Is this really required?


 The current RPM spec file produces a package that contains these modules, however, you can not upgrade the RedHat / CentOS kernel after compiling / installing DPDK, which is a bad thing, so, from a user perspective, it is not ready for production yet (the DPDK's RPM packaging).

 Also, I think that there is no duplicated effort here, since Debian / Ubuntu packaging is very different from RedHat / CentOS.

 BTW, sorry that I didn't appeared on the meeting, many things to do in my job...

Cheers!
Thiago 

On 25 May 2016 at 10:45, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@...> wrote:
It does not make sense, there is already a repo for pkg frameworks, please, update it if you need something:
  http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg

It is going to duplicate the efforts.

What am I missing?

Le 25/05/2016 15:20, Luke, Chris a écrit :
Only if the project really is going to be focused on .deb packaging,
which feels like quite a narrow scope to me, but perhaps I am missing
what’s involved.

Chris.

*From:*tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] *On
Behalf Of *Jim Thompson
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:50 AM
*To:* Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
*Cc:* tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; Damjan Marion
<damarion@...>; Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...>; Thiago
Martins <thiagocmartinsc@...>; pkg-dpdk-devel@...
*Subject:* Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk

FreeBSD's package system is named pkg.

(Yes, we plan to bring VPP to FreeBSD.)

I think pkg-dpdk needs a name change.


deb-DPDK?


-- Jim


On May 25, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
<christian.ehrhardt@...
<mailto:christian.ehrhardt@...>> wrote:

    Dear FD.io <http://fd.io> TSC,

    I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb
    based platforms.

    Please see https://wiki.fd.io/view/Project_Proposals/pkg-dpdk for
    details.

    It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is
    anything to be clarified.


    Christian Ehrhardt

    Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server

    Canonical Ltd

    _______________________________________________
    tsc mailing list
    tsc@... <mailto:tsc@...>
    https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc



_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc




Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@...>
 

2016-05-25 12:34, Martinx - ジェームズ:
The current RPM spec file produces a package that contains these modules,
however, you can not upgrade the RedHat / CentOS kernel after compiling /
installing DPDK, which is a bad thing, so, from a user perspective, it is
not ready for production yet (the DPDK's RPM packaging).
Could you elaborate please?
The RPM recipe in dpdk/pkg/ is a base for RPM-based distros.
Fedora/RHEL do their own package customization while working upstream.

Also, I think that there is no duplicated effort here, since Debian /
Ubuntu packaging is very different from RedHat / CentOS.
You probably have noticed that the name of the directory is pkg/ not rpm/:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
It means the packaging stuff for .deb are more than welcome.

It really doesn't make sense to split DPDK and its packaging.
I understand Ubuntu has its own packaging stuff, but VPP??
Do you mean that OVS will not use a .deb package for DPDK?

While at it, I would like to say that hosting the DPDK releases on
https://nexus.fd.io/content/repositories/thirdparty/
is probably not the best idea ever.
I heard that some users had some download issues (never reported on the
DPDK mailing list). That's why the archives are now available from a CDN:
http://dpdk.org/rel
http://fast.dpdk.org/rel/


C.J. Collier
 

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Jim Thompson <jim@...> wrote:
FreeBSD's package system is named pkg. 
(Yes, we plan to bring VPP to FreeBSD.)

I think pkg-dpdk needs a name change. 

deb-DPDK?

-- Jim

On May 25, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...> wrote:

Dear FD.io TSC,
I'd like to propose a project about jointly packaging DPDK for deb based platforms.

It would be great to get your support, let us know if there is anything to be clarified.

Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc

_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


O'Driscoll, Tim
 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Thomas Monjalon

2016-05-25 12:34, Martinx - ジェームズ:
The current RPM spec file produces a package that contains these
modules,
however, you can not upgrade the RedHat / CentOS kernel after
compiling /
installing DPDK, which is a bad thing, so, from a user perspective, it
is
not ready for production yet (the DPDK's RPM packaging).
Could you elaborate please?
The RPM recipe in dpdk/pkg/ is a base for RPM-based distros.
Fedora/RHEL do their own package customization while working upstream.

Also, I think that there is no duplicated effort here, since Debian /
Ubuntu packaging is very different from RedHat / CentOS.
You probably have noticed that the name of the directory is pkg/ not
rpm/:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
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.

I understand Ubuntu has its own packaging stuff, but VPP??
Do you mean that OVS will not use a .deb package for DPDK?

While at it, I would like to say that hosting the DPDK releases on
https://nexus.fd.io/content/repositories/thirdparty/
is probably not the best idea ever.
I heard that some users had some download issues (never reported on the
DPDK mailing list). That's why the archives are now available from a
CDN:
http://dpdk.org/rel
http://fast.dpdk.org/rel/
_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@...>
 

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

2016-05-25 12:34, Martinx - ジェームズ:
The current RPM spec file produces a package that contains these
modules,
however, you can not upgrade the RedHat / CentOS kernel after
compiling /
installing DPDK, which is a bad thing, so, from a user perspective, it
is
not ready for production yet (the DPDK's RPM packaging).
Could you elaborate please?
The RPM recipe in dpdk/pkg/ is a base for RPM-based distros.
Fedora/RHEL do their own package customization while working upstream.

Also, I think that there is no duplicated effort here, since Debian /
Ubuntu packaging is very different from RedHat / CentOS.
You probably have noticed that the name of the directory is pkg/ not
rpm/:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
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
repository.

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.

For this reason, as distribution maintainers, there are a set of
requirements and constraints that unfortunately might be difficult to
meet with such an arrangement.

I'm sure others can chip in as well, but off the top of my head:

1) The "debian" directory must be in the root level, not in a
subdirectory - this is expected by the packaging tools
2) The upstream code in the repo must be stable - ie: release branches
would have to be created (might work with tags if using git-buildpackage
as a workflow), as we can't upload code in development, and we need to
make our changes in there
3) We as maintainers are responsible for what is uploaded to our
distros, so we would need write access to the packaging branches to do
our packaging changes
4) As we carry on, we will need branches per distro stable releases (and
more) - Debian 9 will have its branch, Debian 10 another one, etc (same
for Ubuntu I guess). This is because the upstream code _cannot_ change
once Debian stable is released, only quilt patches on top of it are
allowed. Also, the Debian tools evolve from release to release, so
packaging-related code and scripts that work in Debian 10 might very
well not work in Debian 9

For these (and possibly more) reasons, it is rare for an upstream
repository to also concurrently host inline the packaging code that is
used to upload to distributions.

Thoughts?

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi


Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
 


On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@...> wrote:
It does not make sense, there is already a repo for pkg frameworks, please, update it if you need something:
  http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg

It is going to duplicate the efforts.

What am I missing?

Hi Vincent,
It was meant as kind of a boiler plate to agree several different persons&projects needs and .deb specifics as well as pass it through some more testing before "bringing it upstream".
I already discussed with Thomas Monjalon about it that we likely want to bring it upstream eventually and end up in what you referenced.



Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
 

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/:
> >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
> > 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
repository.

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.


O'Driscoll, Tim
 

 

 

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/:
> >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
> > 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
repository.

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.



Tim

 


Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
 

Hi TSC,
I think we discussed and clarified all open points in the last update to the wiki.

Summary:
- 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 dpdk.org

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/:
> >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
> > 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
repository.

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.



Tim

 



Edward Warnicke
 

Christian,

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

Ed

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

Summary:
- 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 dpdk.org

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/:
> >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
> > 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
repository.

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.



Tim

 



_______________________________________________
tsc mailing list
tsc@...
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Vincent JARDIN
 

Thanks Christian for this summary.

Le 2 juin 2016 13:36, "Christian Ehrhardt" <christian.ehrhardt@...> a écrit :
>
> Hi TSC,
> I think we discussed and clarified all open points in the last update to the wiki.
>
> Summary:
> - 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 dpdk.org
>
> 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/:
>>> > >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
>>> > > 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
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tsc mailing list
> tsc@...
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Joel Halpern
 

I got the impression from the mailing list exchanges that some DPDK folks felt this was the wrong way to solve the problem.

Have I understood that properly?

Has the discrepancy been resolved?

 

Yours,

Joel

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Christian Ehrhardt
Cc: tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; pkg-dpdk-devel@...; Damjan Marion; Luca Boccassi; Thomas Monjalon; Martinx - ?????
Subject: Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk

 

Thanks Christian for this summary.

Le 2 juin 2016 13:36, "Christian Ehrhardt" <christian.ehrhardt@...> a écrit :
>
> Hi TSC,
> I think we discussed and clarified all open points in the last update to the wiki.
>
> Summary:
> - 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 dpdk.org
>
> 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/:
>>> > >     http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/pkg
>>> > > 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
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tsc mailing list
> tsc@...
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@...>
 

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...> wrote:

I got the impression from the mailing list exchanges that some DPDK folks felt this was the wrong way to solve the problem.

Have I understood that properly?

Has the discrepancy been resolved?


Hi Joel,
There was some misunderstanding about the scope and intention as well where (most of) that code ends up eventually.
In discussions with the related people those have been resolved, our last updates to the proposal reflect that.


[...]


Joel Halpern
 

Great.  Thanks.

Joel

 

From: Christian Ehrhardt [mailto:christian.ehrhardt@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:10 AM
To: Joel Halpern
Cc: Vincent JARDIN; tsc@...; ricardo.salveti@...; pkg-dpdk-devel@...; Damjan Marion; Luca Boccassi; Thomas Monjalon; Martinx - ?????
Subject: Re: [tsc] Proposal for pkg-dpdk

 

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@...> wrote:

I got the impression from the mailing list exchanges that some DPDK folks felt this was the wrong way to solve the problem.

Have I understood that properly?

Has the discrepancy been resolved?

 

Hi Joel,

There was some misunderstanding about the scope and intention as well where (most of) that code ends up eventually.

In discussions with the related people those have been resolved, our last updates to the proposal reflect that.

 

 

[...]