FW: [hobbit] Future of Hobbit - Getting added to distro repos
-----Original Message----- From: Buchan Milne [mailto:bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2008 5:50 PM To: hobbit at hswn.dk Cc: Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) Subject: Re: FW: [hobbit] Future of Hobbit - Getting added to distro repos
On Thursday 31 January 2008 02:36:41 Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) wrote:
Hi all
The rrdtool RPMs are in the Fedora 7/8 Everything repos. This means that the _might_ find their way into RHEL6 providing rrdtool (and all its components) are compatible with RedHat.
It's unlikely hobbit would go into RHEL until it's been in Fedora and I've had a quick look at the hobbit README and seen that there are four components that are not GPLed, this may or may not be a problem for RedHat's lawyers. This post
(http://www.archivum.info/fedora-extras-list at redhat.com/2005-0 5/msg00099
.html) requested a review of hobbit for inclusion in Fedora but looks like no one took up the challenge.
Anyway, I've raised tickets 1801320 and 1801322 with RedHat to have rrdtool and hobbit included in RHEL5.
I have some experience creating/maintaining RPMs so I'll put my name forward for consideration in the interim.
I'd recommend you take a look at my Mandriva package first:
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/hob bit/current/
The packages basically have no valid errors from rpmlint, or duplicate files in distro checks etc (some of which can be seen on my page on one of the 3rd-party package checking tools for Mandriva - http://youri.zarb.org/demo/mandriva/bgmilne at mandriva.org/rpmch eck.html note the absence of Hobbit).
Regards, Buchan
I've had a look at your SPEC file. It doesn't build cleanly under RHEL due to the Mandrivia specific macros. Can you make it more generic so as to support other RPM based distros?
CC
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. You must not read, copy, use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both messages and all attachments.
On Friday 01 February 2008 01:59:19 Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Buchan Milne [mailto:bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net] Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2008 5:50 PM To: hobbit at hswn.dk Cc: Coe, Colin C. (Unix Engineer) Subject: Re: FW: [hobbit] Future of Hobbit - Getting added to distro repos
[...]
I'd recommend you take a look at my Mandriva package first:
http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/hob
bit/current/
The packages basically have no valid errors from rpmlint, or duplicate files in distro checks etc (some of which can be seen on my page on one of the 3rd-party package checking tools for Mandriva - http://youri.zarb.org/demo/mandriva/bgmilne at mandriva.org/rpmch eck.html note the absence of Hobbit). I've had a look at your SPEC file. It doesn't build cleanly under RHEL due to the Mandrivia specific macros. Can you make it more generic so as to support other RPM based distros?
IMHO, this is going backwards. Some of these functions for which Mandriva has standard macros really are required, and implementations need to differ.
However, I have got a macros file which has RedHat implementations of these macros:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Projects/BackPorts#Building_Mandriva_SRPMS_on_ot...
Maybe I need to start proposing standard macros across all rpm-based distros ...
I have been watching this thread for binaries for different linux Distros for awhile. About a few months back I started initial implementation of clientupdate. With clientupdate, all linux distibutions boil down to 'linux' OS. So if there are multiple linux distros being monitored, or same distro but different versions, wouldn't this lead to complication with clientupdate ? Because that same tar will be pushed out to everything 'linux'. The way I dealt with this issue, is that my hobbit tar was compiled statically. Ideally the binaries have all the dependencies compiled in. So it should work on any linux distro.
So multiple distro packages are nice, but is there a problem when updates need to be pushed ? Or did I just miss something obvious ?
~Steve
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:54:59AM -0500, s_aiello at comcast.net wrote:
So multiple distro packages are nice, but is there a problem when updates need to be pushed ? Or did I just miss something obvious ?
Clients should be immune to small differences in distribution - the only problem really is if the client binaries (logfetch, msgcache and bb) are linked against different glibc versions.
If it does become a problem, start the client with the "--class=FOO" option and it will pick up the update-package FOO instead of "linux".
Henrik
participants (4)
-
bgmilne＠staff.telkomsa.net
-
Colin.Coe＠woodside.com.au
-
henrik＠hswn.dk
-
s_aiello＠comcast.net