On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 02:23:27PM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:51 -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > > > While I think I understand why you say this, it very easily can sound > > like a monopolistic tactic to sell more Sun hardware. > > Heh. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to say anything that will > convince you otherwise. But to your points I will say...
I appreciate the effort ;) > Certainly it would be nice to support everyone's kernels, but we have > limited resources and our customers have told us what kernels they want > support for and that's what we support. You have to appreciate that > Lustre development costs money to keep going and that money has to come > from somewhere and currently it's coming from customers who want RHEL > and SLES kernels. If there was a business case in supporting > Debian/Ubuntu kernels, I think we'd be doing it. > > That said, we are proud that Lustre has been able to continue as an Open > Source development project and as such are happy to see the community > take up the packaging of Debian/Ubuntu packages in some of the Debian > distributions for the community user base. > > In addition, IIRC there was an offer made on this list to include some > amount of Debian/Ubuntu packaging foo in our official source repository > should somebody want to contribute something. I don't think anyone has > stepped up (yet). I am still hopeful. I went through the process of installing on Debian a month or two ago. It seems to work relatively well. http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php?title=Debian_Install All this effort in packaging and QA problems seems to kinda be something that would just go away with a patchless server though. Which I think leads back to having good documentation on what each patch in the set is for, and what issues it has in getting merged into upstream kernel.org. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
