On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:30 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Alex Huang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:07 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [ASF40][QA] AWSAPI packging remarks >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Frank Zhang <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Not being a packaging guy, I don't have a strong opinion about this >>>> >>> issue. >>>> >>> However, is the consensus that we have enough of a problem here that >>>> >>> it needs to be addressed prior to a release? >>>> >> >>>> >> Personally I think it needn't. >>>> >> And I even think awsapi should be a separate project, though this is >>>> >> little off topic >>>> > >>>> > Thanks Frank... >>>> > >>>> > Any other opinions? >>>> > >>>> > Anyone want to take a crack at resolving the AWS API packaging issue? >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank: >>>> >>>> My question is what's the next version impact of leaving things like the >>>> awsapi/client %post symlinks in place? Even if we correct this in 4.next - >>>> will >>>> this clean up cleanly? I will try and look at ascertain what the impact is >>>> tomorrow, but am happy to have someone beat me to it. If it is something >>>> that has little or no impact I am happy for us to just file bugs. If it >>>> ends up >>>> being ugly, we should fix it before we try and release. >>>> >>> David, >>> >>> This is actually in current versions of CloudStack so, unlike the >>> /cloud/agent symlink, it's not something new created due to 4.0 release. >>> Because it's in previous versions of CloudStack, we have to cleanup anyways >>> if we decide not to use this "hack". And removing it would mean we need to >>> add in code now to cleanup previous versions of links. I think it's better >>> to file a bug and QA the proper cleanup and deploy in the next release. >>> >>> --Alex >> >> >> Yeah - I don't think it's so awful that it hurts us, but it does point >> to a problem in the AWSAPI code that we are getting around with a >> packaging hack. >> I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-293 to deal >> with this in 4.1 as I am worried that the changes will cause more >> uncertainty and potential problems than 'fixing it' at this stage in >> the release cycle. >> >> --David >> > > Two things: > > How about Wido's remark about us not packaging for Debian?
Created Cloudstack-294 > > And Frank noted that there are some steps that need to be documented. > Do we have a bug opened for the DOC team on them? CloudStack-295 --David
