About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Bjoern Steinbrink (bjoern.steinbrink_at_isp4p.net)
Date: Tue 21 Dec 2004 - 18:01:31 GMT


On 2004.12.21 18:09:29 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> maintainer.
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Bjrn Steinbrink wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:35:18 +0000 (UTC)
> > Jesper Krogh <jesper_at_krogh.cc> wrote:
> >
> > > I gmane.linux.vserver, skrev Herbert Poetzl:
> > > >
> > > > yes, it is also common practice to avoid debian
> > > > to get a working linux-vserver setup ...
> > >
> > > For any particular reason?
> >
> > Because debian packages are made to work with debian packages. That
> > means that if you use the debian util-vserver package it is best to use
> > their kernel patch and their helper stuff, it won't work too well with
> > non debianized stuff. Problem is: debian stuff is often outdated, f.e.
> > from what i remember debian has an (old) vserver patch for 2.6 (devel),
> > but the tools are kept at 0.30 (stable), thus you can't use the new
> > features (except if the debian maintainers wrote/backported tools...).
>
> I would like to say like this: Debian tend to ship well tested
> and stable versions. The kernel patch for 2.6 kernel was an experiment
> and I actually think it was a bad ida to add it there. I have got
> many misunderstandings about this version.
>

No problem with that statement, but my point was a little different. For
example, IIRC debootstrap in woody seems to rely on a bug in the sed version
that comes with woody, if you use a backported sed version with that bug
fixed, debootstrap breaks. The packages are made to work with each
other, not with what happens to be upstream. And from what i heard
debian's util-vserver also differs from upstream behaviour (f.e.
/var/lib/vservers instead of /vservers as the vserver directory [bad
example...]), so that may increase the trouble the upstream maintainers
may have to go through.

> > Also, since some packages have very little in common with the upstream,
> > it's a real pain to fix issues if you don't happen to be the debian
> > maintainer.
>
> Patches are always welcome!
>
> > You should have a look at the list's
> > archives and search for message from/to debian maintainers, maybe that
> > helps understanding why, for linux-vserver, the debianized stuff is not
> > the first choice.
>
> I would like to tell that util-vserver on 2.4 is very well tested. The
> reason why the 2.6 version is not included in Debian is that is is not
> stable (still development as far as I know).
>

If debian's util-vserver package + the vserver package is stable then
that is great, but a good number of folks try to use the util-vserver
package with 2.6 kernels and that is really a bad idea...

> > That said, i want to say that i've used debian a long time and i like
> > it, but sometimes their (or a maintainer's, dunno) packaging policies
> > don't fit a project very well. Linux-VServer is such a project as it
> > seems.
>
> Well I do not really see your problem here. If you want to use
> development branch you have to use it from upstream. Stable versions
> is what is intended for release, or do I misunderstand something here?

My comment was based on the fact that the 2.6 patch was included into the
debian package, but the appropriate tools were not. Your argument was
that the tools weren't stable yet. The result was a kernel-patch
package that depended on tools not really suitable for it. Policy-wise i
meant that the kernel-patch package wasn't split up into a 2.4 and a 2.6
package, each one depending on its own suitable tools. Maybe I should
just have said that it was a bad idea to include the 2.6 kernel-patch ;)

Suggestions:
Split up the kernel patches into two package. Include the alpha tools as
a second tools package and set correct dependencies for all packages
(keep in mind that 2.4 kernel should work with alpha tools as well...).
Later you could probably drop the old tools package and exclusivly use
the no-longer-alpha tools.
or
Put a big note onto the package telling folks not to mix the debian
util-vserver package with upstream stuff, especially 2.6 kernel patches.
And if possible remove the 2.6 kernel-patch from the debian kernel-patch
package until you get the time/possibilty to fully support.

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Tue 21 Dec 2004 - 18:01:58 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3