[dev] [FRR TSC] Package Discussion (Doodle for times)

Tue May 30 03:01:05 EDT 2017

Hi Donald, Martin,

The discussion is about https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/378 ?

The packaging process may differ for each distribution, and I think
contrary to the core application of frr, the packaging should differ
between distributions.
I would tend to accept the PR as is.
Then, if any issues on specific Linux distributions, the rpm folks will
have to show up.
Martin did a nice job to bootstrap and to try to aggregate packaging, but I
would tend to focus on the Debian/Ubuntu ones (startup and .deb).
Then, I would ask the Linux vendors to manage the over-mess of their
startup logics+packaging logics.

Cheers,
Philippe

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Donald Sharp <sharpd at cumulusnetworks.com>
wrote:

> So I specifically asked for the meeting last week so that the
> interested parties could hammer out an initial agreement( or to refine
> their arguments ) for the TSC to help minimize the time in the
> meeting..  Mainly because I wanted to avoid getting into the meeting
> and spending most of it on this issue.
>
> donald
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Martin Winter
> <mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
> > On 25 May 2017, at 4:25, Donald Sharp wrote:
> >
> >> So do you want to have the meeting to discuss the issue or not?
> >
> >
> > Personally, I don’t see this to get us anywhere moving forward
> > (Moving forward, as defined to come to an agreement of one of the
> > 3 choices listed below).
> >
> > I do believe that you raised some technical concerns and you are
> > pretty solid in your believe of them and they are different to
> > my views (and I’m pretty solid in believing in them).
> > Just to be clear: I don’t blame the holdout on you - I highly appreciate
> > your views, but I believe the only way forward is by getting more
> > people to chime in (preferably after they spent time investigating
> > it)
> >
> > So unless we either get either more people involved, I do believe
> > forcing this to the TSC will get us a decision and I would love to
> > see if the TSC process actuality holds up in practice as defined.
> >
> > If you see any better way to actually get this resolved, then do
> > please explain. My preference is to get this resolved one way or
> > another ASAP.
> > Until this is resolved I see little chance to get any other packages
> > built for FRR (I agree that they should have at least the same look
> > and feel) and I would prefer to get packages for 3.0 and Debian
> > /FreeBSD in there VERY soon.
> >
> > Or did I completely miss the reason why we would have a meeting?
> >
> > - Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Martin Winter
> >> <mwinter at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ok, there seems to be some serious lack of interest.
> >>>
> >>> Only got response from David and “Robot” (supposedly Donald?).
> >>> (and Jafar saying that he doesn’t have time)
> >>>
> >>> Not sure how to proceed, so here is my rant:
> >>>
> >>> I’m thinking about just closing the Redhat Package PR (not merging,
> >>> just close) and someone else can address it again in maybe 6 months
> >>> or whenever there is any interest at all.
> >>>
> >>> I was really hoping to get something in - maybe not perfect, but at
> >>> least a start and everyone would be welcome to improve it afterwards
> >>> with PRs on top of the base.
> >>> The PR doesn’t break anything existing (current packages fail on all
> >>> OS for me, so I’m not building any RH packages at this time). So I
> think
> >>> it’s better than what we have now and it doesn’t break anything
> existing.
> >>> Based on this, my view would be to get it in.
> >>>
> >>> But it seems the discussion goes down the rathole on how to have all
> >>> perfect back to 2.0 release and rather have nothing instead of this.
> >>> There is very little technical feedback (Donald provided some and I
> >>> thank him for this - even if he has different views, I highly
> >>> appreciate them. The issue here is NOT the fault of Donald, but
> >>> the lack of feedback from just about everyone else. It just caused a
> >>> “standstill” as Donald and I have different personal views on some of
> >>> the technical points. But I think a 3rd/4th opinion could have solved
> >>> this very easily)
> >>>
> >>> Now from me pushing the long overdue decision, the whole things seems
> >>> to derail on how to get packages into distro’s. This is secondary to me
> >>> as they always lag far behind and I think there is no way around
> >>> providing up-to-date packages directly like most other projects do.
> >>>
> >>> </rant>
> >>>
> >>> Steps forward:
> >>>
> >>> I formally ask this now to be moved to the TSC for a vote on how
> >>> to move forward (as our charters outline). I want an agreement to
> >>> either
> >>>  - Close (abandon) the PR without merging
> >>>  - Accept the PR as it is
> >>>  - Clear indication of what is missing/broken and required to
> >>>     be fixed for it to be accepted.
> >>>
> >>> Let’s see how our TSC process works…
> >>>
> >>> - Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 23 May 2017, at 8:56, Martin Winter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> https://doodle.com/poll/5bx4c7krsb3xctxu
> >>>>
> >>>> Pick your times if you want to be part of the discussion…
> >>>>
> >>>> - Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TSC mailing list
> >>> TSC at lists.frrouting.org
> >>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/tsc
>
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC at lists.frrouting.org
> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/tsc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frrouting.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20170530/965a5cc9/attachment.html>