Re: OpenHPC on Debian
على الأحد 22 تـمـوز 2018 10:27، كتب Renato Golin:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 at 00:50, Afif Elghraoui <afif@debian.org> wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, you mean doing some of your work within
>> Debian officially?
>
> Hi Afif,
>
> That's not entirely clear to me, yet.
>
> Our RPM "release" works as an overlay to CentOS/OpenSuse that has
> additional packages which do not belong to the original distro. More
> or less like AUR, homebrew, ports.
>
> Some of those packages may even conflict with the distro's own
> packages (due to library and version dependencies), so we try not to
> get that close.
>
> For example, we have GCC 7.1 and GCC 7.1 compiled packages. Those are
> clearly incompatible with CentOS' GCC 5.4 compiled packages. We also
> have meta packages, that installs bundles and/or set environment
> configurations, which may break existing Debian packages? (I'm
> guessing here).
>
> In that sense, Debian would be the wrong place to *have* those
> packages. It would create too many conflict and make our lives harder
> for little benefit.
>
Well, at least metapackages that install bundles would be fine.
> But some of those packages already exist in the HPC group at Debian,
> so if I start building my own packages that override yours, I'm bound
> to create problems for both of us.
>
> I can see a few scenarios:
>
> 1. Complement: I only build the packages that you don't have. This
> would create the problem of releases coming out at different times and
> would potentially conflict versions and build flags.
>
> 2. Segregate: I take the source packages you have, add my own and
> build in house. This would inhibit potential collaboration between our
> efforts.
For the applicable packages you need that can go into Debian, if we use
the same git repositories and host on salsa.debian.org, the packages are
maintained within Debian, and you simply rebuild the sources for your
own releases, I think that would be enough collaboration.
>
> 3. Merge: We release the packages in Debian, trying to have the same
> cadence of releases. This would complicate the release process on both
> ends.
>
> We could probably find a common ground, and use different strategies
> for different package classes, but the more complex this is, the
> harder it will be to maintain.
>
> I'm fully aware how hard package maintenance is. :)
>
>
>> Everyone is welcome to contribute, of course, and
>> packages need to be sponsored by a Debian Developer, which entails a
>> review for policy compliance.
>
> That is the main reason for this email.
>
> Even if I end up building everything, I still want a Debian developer
> to have a look and help me be "as compliant as possible", in the case
> we can't be compliant enough.
>
The upside for us is getting more useful packages into Debian, so I hope
we can at least get something. In the process, you may end up knowing
enough to check for yourself, maybe becoming a Debian Maintainer [1] to
get upload rights for the set of packages you maintain.
>
> We have a small user base and we usually only release what we can test.
>
> We already add/update packages to our repos in that manner, but we
> update close to 50% of our packages every few months.
>
> If we are to have a Debian port, I would have to have the same thing
> in our private repos, so not a big change to do that in Debian's own.
> But it would (maybe) put pressure on your group to release more often
> / out-of-sync with your releases.
>
We should be putting the latest upstream releases of packages into
Debian Unstable regularly anyway, even if they already get replaced by
the time the next Stable release comes around, so this isn't a problem.
Also, Ubuntu is periodically pulling things in from Debian and would
benefit.
>
> I'm willing to do the maintenance and packaging for as long as it's
> approved within Linaro, but I'd have to convince the rest of the
> OpenHPC (and Debian HPC) communities to keep it up in case Linaro
> drops support.
>
> Given I can't control any of that, I'd rather start with a simple and
> pragmatic approach and grow organically, than create a massive repo
> and release schedule and then see that I'm the only one really
> interested. :)
>
> Maybe the first step would be to try installing an OpenHPC-like system
> from our PDF and propose adding the missing packages to make it work.
> They're obvious and usually interesting to have anyway.
>
> If that works, and people start using, we can grow more. If not,
> Debian HPC would have gained a few packages that can get validated
> with Ansible.
>
Ok, great! Looks like a plan.
Thanks and regards
Afif
1. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer
--
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name
Reply to: