On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 07:27 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:02:53 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Please don't do this. > > I had to do it for troubleshooting as well as for delivering bugfix and new > features support. I agree is should be temporary thing but I see no harm in > it. I think I'm not the only one who might need it. For example there is > upstream bug report to package modules for RHEL separately: > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6986 > > In any case I'm planning to target it for "experimental" only. > I know it is not suitable for release without upstream support. > > Why do you think we'd be better without ceph-dkms? > > Would it be OK for you if I keep it in experimental (or in unstable with RC > bug "not suitable for release" to prevent migration to "testing")? I think that's fine. I just dislike kernel bugs being addressed by 'use this out-of-tree package instead'. Some projects with both in-tree and out-of-tree releases seem to encourage this rather than maintaining their in-tree code properly. (But I'm not saying ceph is among those; I'm not familiar enough with it to make a judgement.) > > If there are specific ceph features and bug fixes > > that should be backported, talk to the the kernel team. > > Thank you. It might be a good idea to let you know about problems. > For instance I've been hit hard by the following bug (I/O errors on RBD > device) that was just fixed by upstream (so I'll have to use my DKMS package > until fix propagate to 3.14): > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8226 > > Patch is included to the above bug report. > > Trust me, I'm not doing it from boredom and it will be pity to let the effort > die in vain... Understood. If that has been committed to an official repository for ceph then I think I can cherry-pick it for sid. Please report a bug against the kernel to request this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Horngren's Observation: Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part