On Jul 02, 2009 10:44 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > If the --with-ldiskfsprogs was indeed used, perhaps/probably, configure > should check that ldiskfsprogs was installed on the build system. > Additionally, the Requires: tags in the resulting RPM should probably be > changed to ldiskfsprogs from e2fsprogs, if that is not already being > done. > > Perhaps Josephine could file a bug to those effects. > > Given that having the ldiskfsprogs flavour of the utilities installed is > strictly a run-time requirement, perhaps the above configure enhancement > not be so strict, but certainly the latter, the RPM requirement, should > be. If Josephine had installed resulting RPMs, that would have been her > signal that things were not quite aligning. If configure is not so > strict, it could at least warn about the missing utilities.
I wouldn't support a BuildRequires, since I've had enough trouble with those in the past that I don't like them at all. However, we've been shipping e2fsprogs with a "Provides: ldiskfsprogs" for long enough (at least 1.40.5.sun1, I haven't checked earlier) that we could consider also add a "Requires: ldiskfsprogs" to our lustre .spec so that we are sure that a Lustre-aware e2fsprogs is available. The one problem is that e2fsprogs/ldiskfsprogs is NOT required on the client, and I wouldn't want to force this on every client. I don't think we have separate server RPMs, so I don't know if there is an easy answer. Note also that the Lustre e2fsprogs doesn't provide a "mkfs.ldiskfs", "fsck.ldiskfs", or any similar tool. That is only in LLNL's RPM, and the "--with-ldiskfsprogs" option shouldn't really be used by anyone else. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc. _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
