Bug#674904: Some packaging questions regarding Soft-iWARP
Hi Luk,
I am happy to see interest in Soft-iWARP(siw).
Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote on 05/28/2012 04:06:02 PM:
> From: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>
> To: Bernard Metzler <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>,
> Cc: 674904@bugs.debian.org, 674905@bugs.debian.org
> Date: 05/28/2012 04:06 PM
> Subject: Some packaging questions regarding Soft-iWARP
>
> Hi
>
> I want to package the kernel module and userspace library for Soft-iWARP
> in Debian. Though there are some things that are not very clear to me:
>
> * Is there only the gitorious site or is there a website I can link to
> for more information regarding Soft-iWARP?
yes, currently there is only this site. With increasing interest in
siw, I would provide more information on a dedicated web site.
> * What's the version of the kernel module and the userspace library and
> how will it evolve?
It is work in progress, albeit not touched since February or so.
I called it version 0.9. In fact there is no real version management
behind that. If it gets picked up by distros like Debian
I would start with reasonable numbering.
Since quite some time I planned to change or extend the user level
interface by user mapped send/receive/completion queues. I expect
substantial delay savings for small messages. I will do that when
I find time (it is all understood and prototyped in another
similar project).
> * Is there a particular reason why there are no tarballs to distribute
> the software (this would also make the versioning easier I guess)?
So far I tried to provide a site were interested code reviewers
could download siw. I sent the kernel code as patches to
linux-rdma and netdev lists, hoping for acceptance for mainline
Linux.
Tarballs are something which would be provided by a dedicated
web site as discussed.
> * Should bug reports and feature requests be sent to this email address
> or is there a bugtracker?
yes. there is no bug tracker (yet). I am happy to get
input via bmt(at)zurich.ibm.com.
> * Currently it's needed to run autogen.sh twice, would it not be better
> to use autoreconf instead?
>
yes. I know I have to cleanup the installation procedure. Let me look into
this within the next days.
Thanks,
Bernard.
Reply to: