On Monday, March 10, 2014 22:08:01 Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 10/03/14 16:32, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > > Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes: > >> On 10/03/14 at 22:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >>> On 03/09/2014 12:51 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >>>> One other thing comes to mind: for packages that are slightly more > >>>> volatile than what the backports maintainers expect, or large > >>>> collections of packages like OpenStack, is it worthwhile having some > >>>> alternative to wheezy-backports? E.g. call it wheezy-backports-plus > >>>> and > >>>> just distribute things from unstable or jessie compiled automatically > >>>> on > >>>> a wheezy box? > >>> > >>> Actually, now that you make me think about it, I know that FTP masters > >>> have already implemented creating "any" new named repository. So I'm > >>> adding them in the loop to ask for it. > >>> > >>> So, dear FTP masters, would it be possible for you to create some new > >>> repositories for OpenStack? I would need: > >>> - wheezy-havana > >>> - wheezy-icehouse > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm very much in favor of providing up-to-date OpenStack packages to > >> users of wheezy. The fact that the official OpenStack documentation for > >> Debian points to an unofficial repository is quite sad. > >> > >> However, I'm not sure I understand what problems would be solved by > >> using wheezy-havana, wheezy-icehouse, etc. instead of just plainly > >> wheezy-backports? > > > > I agree with Lucas here. Unless the backports ftpmasters have specific > > concerns (they did not comment until now). I would prefer to have this > > in debian-backports instead of it's own repository. > > > > The only "problem" that could be solved is to lift the requirement that > > packages have to enter testing before going into backports. But to me > > this is actually a feature lacking form the current unofficial > > repository. > > That is not quite the situation > > The problem with distributed systems is that often the version of the > product is more important than the version of the OS. > > E.g. I've walked into more than one environment where Ganglia 3.0.7 was > in use. From 3.1.0 onwards, the network protocol is different. So > nobody with a Ganglia 3.0.x environment will use the packages from > stable. If they already have custom built Ganglia 3.0.x binaries on > several other platforms like Solaris and even Windows, they will stick > with that version forever and a day. > > Likewise, if somebody has a large network with OpenStack and they just > want some Debian systems to play nicely inside that, they will want > wheezy packages for their version of OpenStack, not just whatever > version of the packages we happen to have in backports. > > There are other examples too, e.g. PostBooks. Once somebody settles on > a specific schema version, all systems they use need to have the same > client version to match that schema. Once again, they don't care if the > desktops are some mix of wheezy, jessie and perhaps Ubuntu as well: the > main thing is, the package versions of the PostBooks client code need to > match the DB schema version. Even if we offer PostBooks 4.3 in jessie, > for example, we may need to offer an easy way for people to get 4.1 > packages on jessie in case they don't want to upgrade their schema at > the same time they update their OS or in case they only want to update 1 > machine per week or whatever. > > The solution to all these problems may well be offering different > repositories or having a way to support multiple version in a single > repository Which is why there is a PPAMAIN proposal. Instead of doing one off solutions for openstack, ganglia, whatever, I think it'd be better if the people who are motivated around this issue invested time in helping with PPA implementation. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.