Comment # 5
on bug 1143
from Nathan Scott
Hi Zack,
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for the response. I'm a little confused about this:
> [...]
Yep, its very confusing. We use the RPM %source keyword to inject external
Vector and pcp-webjs source tarballs into the PCP RPM builds (in the PCP git
tree, see build/rpm/fedora.spec first ~10 lines).
The Debian packaging method we're using is not the "quilt" method described in
that earlier URL
(https://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/07/how-to-use-multiple-upstream-tarballs-in-debian-source-packages/)
... as a result, its not so simple to just inject external sources there as we
do for RPM currently.
We also have a team of people paid to maintain the RPMs, whereas the Debian
packages are maintained out of love, solo. As a result far less time ends up
being invested there - unless more volunteers were to appear (anyone? Bueller?)
which would be awesome & result in higher quality pcp debs.
However, and confusing things even further (!), it's not clear that doing this
deb packaging refactoring (to use quilt format with external sources) is really
the best option ... it's far simpler to package each source tarball separately,
like nature intended. And this can be done now, independently. *shrug* - so,
its complicated. Hopefully this clears some of the confusion, anyway.
(In reply to comment #2)
> [...] what are the concerns?
(there were 3 listed in earlier comments.)
> The "strange reason" is that it is a tested release of vector instead of
> questionably tested random git snapshots that your changes to the pcp.spec
> et al. now bundle.
Hmm, more confusion here. The bintray packages are all ./Makepkgs based, which
does not use Lukas' Fedora-rawhide-git-snapshotting process you're referring
to.
We always use the latest upstream stable release of Vector for the bintray
packages. So the "strange reason" is invalid - please remove the duplicate
copy of Vector in pcp-webjs, and focus on helping to test Vector upstream
*before* each release, such that everyone benefits.
I understand Martin is gearing up for a new Vector release within a week or so
- I'm sure testing assistance would be appreciated *right now*, rather than
afterwards this time.
And the PCP maintainers are also gearing up for a PCP release *right now*, so
we'd love to see help on the QA front this week too. It'd be great to see that
persistent pmmgr test failure Kens reported on for the last several releases
tackled, for example - and any other QA efforts would be much appreciated too.