[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#610653: ITP: dmtcp -- Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes



Hello Yaroslav,

I have made the changes in the new uploaded version. Here is the link
to the new .dsc file:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dmtcp/dmtcp_1.2.0+svn868-1.dsc

My replies/comments/questions are inline.

Thanks,
-Kapil

PS: Please also have a look at libdmtcpaware1.postinst file. I have
used the template and inserted the "ldconfig"; it suppressed lintian
error/warning, but I am not sure if this is the correct way.


2011/1/29 Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>:
> eh... not yet there
>
> * cleanup:
>
>  - either use .examples (prune .example) or cmdline args for dh_installexamples,
>  why both? (later on my lead to confused and wasted time trying to figure out WTF)
>
>  preferably .examples files and clean
> dh_installexamples cmdline -- just add debian/tmp/ prefix into .examples so
> they could find the files (I do not think they search under BUILDDIR like
> dh_install does)

This is what I was missing, I didn't put the debian/tmp/ prefix in
.examples and so had to add the cmdline args. Fixed now.

>  - why to have debian/README symlinked to QUICK-START if that one gets
>  installed proudly under its own name anyways now ;)

That had been sitting there for a while. Removed now :-).

> * Almost forgot:
>
>  please add me to Uploaders field in control, right after
>  Maintainer: (so bugs get closed properly with uploads by me etc):
>
>  Uploaders: Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com>

Done.

> * tried to build across recent debian/ubuntu releases (just for the sake of
> backporting -- not necessary for actual submission), and architectures -- it
> seems that 32bit patch does not apply cleanly (that is an important failure
> needed to be fixed)
...
<snip>
...
> | dmtcp_1.2.0+svn864-1~nd09.04+1_i386.build       FAILED
> | dmtcp_1.2.0+svn864-1~nd09.04+1_amd64.build      FAILED
> `---

This is where I have some problem reproducing the failure. I tried
building it on Ubuntu9.10 and 10.10, both 32-bit, but it built just
fine. I didn't see any issues. I tried by downloading the files from
mentors.debian.net and then doing a dpkg-source followed by
dpkg-buildpackage. Can you tell me how to reproduce these failures?
Should I run a different set of commands?

> * side point -- not sure if you even want to approach it, but since I have it
> already -- may be you want to make it compatible with elderly ubuntu and Debians:
...
<snip>
...
>  - Ubuntu 0.04
> attaching complete build logs for reference

This was a bad bug. I have fixed it now. Thanks.

> * dynamic library
>
>  -  -dev package should carry symlink for .so file, not the lib package
>    (carrying versioned one)

Not sure if I understood it correctly. I have some doubts about the
.so files and various versions of them which are often symlinks in
either direction. So here are a few questions:

[First off, we are not using libtools to create libdmtcpaware.so.]
1. Should the libdmtcpaware1 package just install the
/usr/lib/libdmtcpaware.so.1?
1b. Currently, the toplevel Makefile is renaming the library from
libdmtcpaware.so to libdmtcpaware.so.1. Is this the correct approach?
2. Should libdmtcpaware1-dev package install a symlink
/usr/lib/libdmtcpaware.so --> libdmtcpaware.so.1?
3. I am really confused about the library versioning and symlinking.
Can you provide me some pointers on this?

I have made some changes, please have a look and tell me what to do. Thanks.

>    and then libdmtcpaware-dev should depend on libdmtcpaware1.0 package not
>    dmtcp

Done.

>  -  soname is not set within the library... you might like to follow
>    instructions embedded in some other pieces of your code
>
> $> grep -A2 soname ./mtcp/Makefile
> # Could add something like -Wl,-soname,libmtcp.so.1 if one wants to globally
> #  install a copy of libmtcp.so for others to use.

Fixed now. However, I still don't know how to ask automake/make
(dmtcp/src/Makefile.am) to install the library as libdmtcpaware.so.1.
Currently I have to do it manually in the top-level Makefile.

>  -  is there a reason to have soversion 1.0 instead of plain 1 ? or you expect
>    it not being compatible with new minor releases?

I was not sure whether to put 1 of 1.0 or 1.0.0, so I chose the middle
one :-). Changed to plain 1 now :-).

> *  do not embed homepage into description since homepage field is already there:
>
> $> apt-cache show libdmtcpaware1.0 | grep http
>  For more information see: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net/
> Homepage: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net

Done.

>  also not sure if
>  The user application should link with libdmtcpaware.so (-ldmtcpaware) to use
>  the dmtcp API for checkpoint/restart.
>  is not obvious for anyone installing that package ;-)

Correct. Fixed now.

> Let's hope that next time will be the final push ;-)

Hopefully ;-)



Reply to: