On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Daniel Drake <d...@laptop.org> wrote: > I now have an XS fully up and running and passing all my basic tests. > Here are the remaining items that need addressing before we have a > test release:
Great news. > ejabberd - see the other thread. Need to decide on forking the package > as 'ejabberd' or 'ejabberd-xs' to move forward. I prefer "ejabberd" + a custom revision prefix. I see you intend to blacklist ejabberd from the main epel repo. For users that install CentOS and *then* install our stuff, we may need to add a warning if we don't see our custom revision prefix. It's gotta be a soft warning 'cause we don't really know if it's wrong or not. Alternatively, we could make our ejabberd package provide "ejabberd-xs" or something like that, and xs-config depend on it. If a later ejabberd release has a means to enable the behaviour we want, we can teach xs-config about depending on that one instead. > moodle - pu branch ready for review. If you're going to pull in moodle > updates as well, now is the time :) Great. I'll review a bit later. > I have tested this quite well, including the interaction with mod_admin_extra. Excellent. > xs-release - how do we go forward with this? I think we should drop > the old approach (of *replacing* the system release package) and take > the epel-release approach of just (additionally) installing our repo > files Absolutely. It's a bit more tricky with the blacklisting of ejabberd you're proposing but yeah. > But I'm not sure how you want this in git - existing branch of > existing repo, new repo? Or maybe I could create a new > packages/xs-release repo, with all the files contained in the spec > file repo (i.e. doesn't pull in a tarball, just ships the trivial repo > files directly). Your packages/xs-release plan sounds ok. That was _never_ actually used, unless Jerry based something on it, so I'd say it's ok to wipe it. Otherwise just wipe master and reshape it in any way you want... > xs-logos - Haven't really looked what this has. Given that we don't > face copyright/trademark restrictions of the logo package in CentOS, > can we just drop this? I think it's ok to skip it for now, but we'll bring it back . > usbmount - I had to update to the latest version. It no longer uses > any patches (they are all obsolete/upstream) that's good news! >. How do I take care of > this w.r.t. your existing usbmount git repository, where you actually > forked the source? Perhaps we could just drop/obsolete that git repo, > and create a new packages/usbmount repo with the simple .spec file? Yep, a fedpkg style repo (thjat's what I prep'd the "packages" directory for. For those cases, we'll work on getting them into Fedora/EPEL infra, but _after_ this release cycle. > olpc-xs-builder - pu branch ready for review. Looks good, - where do you maintain the groups file? - does the resulting .iso file convert and now run nicely from USB media? this used to be flakey... > xs-setup during the install, since the user might choose a hostname > that doesn't start with "schoolserver." True, we hadn't considered that. >. The installation instructions > will require the user to run xs-setup after the install completes. That's perfectly acceptable. Worse things have happened at sea. > repos - I have reorganised slightly http://dev.laptop.org/xs/ > "repos" is now a subdirectory there, which will be our main URL from now on. > But the other URLs still work: http://dev.laptop.org/xsrepos/ > http://dev.laptop.org/~martin/xsrepos > Also, I have created aliases at http://dev.laptop.org/xs/stable and > http://dev.laptop.org/xs/testing for the repos. This means that if we > update the DNS of fedora.laptop.org, we will fix "yum update" / "yum > install" for the existing XS's in the field, which use such addresses. > What do you think? Oh thanks! Yes please! > I had to bring some packages in from Fedora, these are: > > bitfrost-1.0.15-3.el6.i686.rpm - not in RHEL/EPEL. Recompiled for EL6 > from rawhide. > mtd-utils-1.3.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm - dep of bios-crypto, imported from F14 > > kernel-2.6.42.2-1.fc15.i686.rpm - as previously agreed, imported from F15 > (kernel-* subpackages too) > grubby-7.0.16-5.fc15.i686.rpm - dep of kernel, imported from F15 > linux-firmware-20110601-1.fc15.noarch.rpm - dep of kernel, imported from F15 > module-init-tools-3.16-2.fc15.i686.rpm - dep of kernel, imported from F15 > acpid-2.0.9-1.fc14.i686.rpm - imported from F14. Needed for compat > with new kernel. > > rssh-2.3.3-2.el6.i686.rpm - imported from EPEL-6 updates > syck-python-0.61-12.el6.i686.rpm - dep of ds-backup, not in RHEL/EPEL. > F14 version recompiled for EL6. > syck-0.61-12.el6.i686.rpm - dep of syck-python I'm surprised the list is so short! > Is it OK to stick these in the core xs-0.7 RPM repo, or would you > prefer a separate "fedora-ports" repo to be created? (I vote just the > one :)) Just one. Going foward, we'll push to get those packages in Fedora/EPEL (where possible) so we migrate towards the fedpkg/koji infra. AIUI, groups can only refer to packages in the same repo -- how do you bring in things like puppet? thanks! m -- mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
