[dev] Package discussion & Init scripts

[Martin Winter]

So I haven’t seen anyone else chiming in.

I’ve talked to Jakob Haufe (sur5r at sur5r.net) who is involved on Debian
packages (and a maintainer for several packages).

He seems to strongly suggest to keep the init scripts separate between
major distributions (debian vs redhat).

I’m going to ask for more specific details on the reasoning…

- Martin


On 6 May 2017, at 18:38, Martin Winter wrote:

> So to start this discussion on the packaging, I would like to base
> this discussion on 2 decisions which need to be done first:
>
> --
>
> 1) Do we want to use 'vtysh integrated-config' for FRR 2.0 packages ?
>
> I believe we all agree that this is the way to go in the future. I'm 
> certain
> we had this discussion before (but can't find pointers in my email). 
> My
> understanding is that we decided to use per-daemon config for 2.0, but
> plan to move to integrated configs soon after.
>
> The main discussion point was the migration path from classic Quagga
> (with separate configs) and the lack of the capability for each
> daemon to read directly from the integrated config (which requires
> the extra step of vtysh to re-load configs if a daemon restart).
>
> There is also the issue for users not running zebra (or does 
> integrated
> config work for a deployment with only BGP?)
>
> I thought we agreed to somehow address these issues before we push 
> users
> to the integrated config.
>
> Anyone remembers this discussion? (Or remembers it different?)
>
> --
>
> 2) Do we want the packages on each platform as close to each other
> as possible or do we want it to follow the conventions of each distro
> as close as possible?
>
> I assume (on the short term), we end up at least with packages for
> - Debian (Ubuntu 14.04, 16.04, Debian 8)
> - Redhat (RedHat 6, 7, CentOS 6, 7, Fedora)
> - FreeBSD
> - Snap packages
>
> I thought about the packages as reference packages for package 
> maintainers
> to build on (and the merging changes from the back in as far as 
> possible)
>
> Each platform has differences in capabilities and guidelines for
> building them:
> - Conventions where configs and binaries should be installed
> - Startup system (init.d, systemd and others)
> - Configuration location (ie /etc/sysconfig for redhat, /etc/debian 
> for debian etc)
>
> Each system also provides functions and examples for startup scripts.
>
> After this is decided, then I think we can talk about the issues on 
> exceptions
>
> Technical challenges like:
> - everything runs under root with apparmor (ie Snap's)
> - Some required packages are not available from standard repo (ie 
> Python 2.7
> or ipaddr python module for Redhat 6)
>
> --
>
> My preferred short term solution:
>
> I would still prefer to get the redhat changes in as they are now for 
> the stable/2.0
> branch (and the debian changes as soon as possible as well). We could 
> reopen this
> discussion later once we actually have working packages for at least 
> these
> 2 platforms
>
> --
>
> I really like to get more opinions here - beside mine and Donald's. 
> Specially
> if you have experience with packages or you know someone you could 
> ask.
>
> - Martin
>
> Here is a link to some basic description of an init file for RedHat 
> based systems:
> http://www.sensi.org/~alec/unix/redhat/sysvinit.html (Original is 
> provided on
> a redhat system in /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysvinitfiles)