[Pkg-ganeti-devel] [SCM] Ganeti packaging branch, for-review, updated. debian/2.7.0-1-23-gf0feb68

[Iustin Pop]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:42:33PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> On 21:19 Wed 17 Jul     , Iustin Pop wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 01:51:18PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> > > On 20:45 Tue 16 Jul     , Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:22:47PM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> > > > > On 20:19 Tue 16 Jul     , Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > > > > Yep, I agree. ganeti (without '2') was last present a long while ago, 
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > it's a good time to migrate (via transitional pkg, etc.).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > iustin
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good, I pushed the change earlier this evening. Can you have a look?
> > > > 
> > > > Looks good (from a brief look), but please make sure upgrades work
> > > > correctly (either via piuparts or manual testing).
> > > 
> > > Did some thorough manual testing and everything seems to work fine.  
> > > Should I merge to master and push?
> > 
> > I would say so, yes. In the debian/ directory are two scripts I used for
> > testing the packages (burnin-xen and burnin-fake), and usually I would
> > update/build/install the package, run these two, and if they pass make a
> > new release.
> 
> Would you like to share the busybox OS definition? :)

Hah :) That's up to Guido, now, I'd say :) but a plain debootstrap works
as well (just slower to install; busybox was a ~3MB tar file, so very
fast to build).

> I already ran a KVM burnin with the debootstrap OS on plain instances 
> and it worked fine (I should really build a test cluster-in-a-cluster).
> 
> Do you think we should release -2, or wait for a new upstream version?

I don't know what the plans are for a new upstream…

iustin