[pkg-eucalyptus-maintainers] [Debian] Re: Eucalyptus 2.0.3 build

[Steffen Möller]

Neil,
On 06/08/2011 08:33 AM, graziano obertelli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:41:44AM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
>> On 06/07/2011 04:35 AM, Rudy Godoy Guillén wrote:
>>> Hello, I'm subscribed finally. I'm currently the guy working for GSoC
>>> project: Compute clusters integration for Debian development. Which means
>>> using Eucalyptus for cross-building.
>>>
>>> Over the weekend I've sucessfully built the Eucalyptus 2.0.3 offline version
>>> from upstream. Although I haven't checked the debian-related patches you
>>> could have done (cdn.d.n appears down), I observed many issues that might
>>> need some work.
>>>
>>> I have some comments:
>>> - Do you guys have set a repo for the packaging bits?
>> There is the pkg-eucalyptus subversion repository. The one on
>> pkg-escience is outdated and the git one that Charles I recall to have
>> created was never adopted, really. Correct me if I am wrong ....
>> The packages we can IMHO directly upload to unstable - we should just
>> submit some bug to it that prevents its migration to testing for the
>> start. Once that is up, let me then upload a version to
>> backports.debian.org.
>>> - How will be versions handled, upstream says it's 2.0.3 but the changelog
>>> isn't updated accordingly, so the resulting binaries are versioned 1.6.2.
>> Uuuuuuuuh, please adjust the changelog, then :)
> neil is the authoritative answer here, but I think that what is in our
> sources is actually obsolete, and not currently used. Before working on
> those you may want to wait for him to confirm that we want to work off
> those.
I am not sure about who is subscribed to the pkg-eucalyptus mailing
list. So I just explicitly added Rudy and yourself to the CC. Rudy has
basically two tasks at hand
a) allow Eucalyptus to start ARM images
b) update the Debian packaging.
For a), I had felt that the exact version of the source may not be too
important, it should just not be too much off from what you are using.
To have b) would help the development of a), and it all may have gotten
some extra value for you since the last weeks. And indeed, with stronger
differences in the source tree, this should better be started all on the
right versions from the start.

I very much thank Graziano for his warning. Neil, is there something you
can help directing us to?

Many thanks and regards,

Steffen