On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Jyri Virkki <Jyri.Virkki at sun.com> wrote:
> The key decision to make is whether it is likely that collectd 4.x and > [a future] collectd 5.x may both be needed in the same release of Solaris. > > There is no blanket answer to that unfortunately. At best, with enough > familiarity with the upstream community, their future direction and > the future direction of other components which use collectd, you can > make an educated prediction. > > Given the upstream community has stated their major releases are > incompatible it suggests coexistence might be needed. AFAIK there is > no version 5 yet but looking back, looks like they still support 3.x > (in maintenance mode) along with 4.x because the two are incompatible > (http://collectd.org/download.shtml), so it is not unreasonable to > imagine 4.x and 5.x may have a similar coexistence. > > On the down side, versioning always adds a bit of clutter and > inconvenience unless needed. > > Think about it and decide whether to support collectd version > coexistence or not. > > If anyone who is interested in collectd has a preference, speak up now. My personal preference would be to take the conservative approach and plan on accommodating it (major version coexistence). You've given some history that suggests that it is more likely than not -- yesterday's weather is tomorrow's forecast and all that. > > Once you decide, make the layout fully reflect the decision. Either it > needs to allow coexistence everywhere, or not. > > > jv02: Iff version coexistence is chosen, I was hoping for ARC members > to have opinions on $COMPONENT$VERSION/* vs. $COMPONENT/$VERSION/* > directory naming (see earlier email). If there are no opinions, > project team can do as they wish. > With the qualification that I'm the newbie outsider member, I'll offer my preference for the $COMPONENT/$VERSION notation as a general guideline. As you mentioned in an earlier email, $COMPONENT$VERSION/ is mostly a historical artifact. It seems arbitrary to me either way, but for what it's worth, I'd rather not see version information as a decorator at the topmost level. Every year 100's of component names are created in the FOSS world (that's a guess), so the chance of creating "clutter" in /usr/ is an upwardly trending risk to my mind. > >> I am not sure as yet if we need to deliver only one collectd package i.e >> SUNWcollectd?. As I mentioned earlier, I have followed the lead of >> apache, lighttpd. mysql etc. all of which deliver a separate root and >> usr package. > > Since you are integrating into sfw you will be required to integrate > both usr and root packages. > > We also know they'll get renamed several times in ways outside of the > project team control, so no point worrying about it until OpenSolaris > gets its ARC act together. Call them Volatile, if you like. > > This is where I agree with you most strongly, Jyri. To my mind, we can't honestly ignore the stability level on these package names/structure. Volatile seems appropriate as a stability level until something changes that.
