Re: Status packaging GT.M? (Was: OpenVista for Ubuntu)
GT.M - Rock solid. Lightning fast. Secure. No compromises.
On 02/03/2010 02:39 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:30:52PM -0800, Jonathan Tai wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
So the question whether to build as root or not on Alioth is void.
The Debian building tools are using fakeroot to build packages.
> To elaborate on this: the packaging process requires root because the
> install script (called "configure" in GT.M) essentially doesn't support
> "make DESTDIR=" functionality.
Ahh, that's a shame and now I understand the problem.
> Bhaskar has hinted at supporting this
> kind of usage in the future -- I didn't want to rewrite the install
> script and diverge significantly from upstream.
So the hint on the new version with rewritten install script enables
specifying a destination directory?
[KSB] To summarize, building GT.M from source only uses normal user ids.
Since GT.M has a program that runs setuid root, installing GT.M on a
system requires root.
The current install script is designed for interactive use and prompts
with questions. I plan to write a new installation script that can take
environment variables and command line flags and then simply run.
> Another hurdle to upstream inclusion is proper support for the FHS. I
> believe Bhaskar had some some work in the area, but I won't speak for
> him. I haven't tried to make GT.M conform to the FHS -- I just install
> it in /opt.
That's actually another showstopper. If I imagine that we have
difficulties to include gt-m anyway because of its bootstrapping nature
we should not overstress ftpmasters patience by providing packages which
are not conformant to Debian Policy.
[KSB] GT.M has no conflict with FHS. You can install GT.M in any
directory you want - for example, on my laptop, I install versions of
GT.M under /usr/lib/fis-gtm. So someone choosing to install GT.M can
choose to install it in a directory where it is FHS compliant or not.
> If you don't mind the build-package-as-root requirement and the lack of
> conformance to the FHS, go ahead and add it -- of course, if you make
> any substantial changes, please do let us know so we can make them in
> our Project as well. As I mentioned before, we're already keeping
> history in Bazaar, so if that's the only reason for adding it, then you
> may want to wait a while longer.
Considering this it sounds reasonable to wait.
[KSB] I think it would be best for to wait till Jon and I get the new
install script written and working.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
Reply to: