[Discuss] [Gt-eos] GSI-OpenSSH Packages for Ubuntu

[Mischa Salle]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:17:49PM +0200, Frank Scheiner wrote:
> Hi Mischa,
> 
> On 7/2/19 13:23, Mischa Salle wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 06:06:33PM -0700, Adam Mercer wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:32 AM Mischa Salle <msalle at nikhef.nl> wrote:
> > > The only changes I needed to make was to not apply the patches in the
> > > Debian packaging as the patches were already applied as part of the
> > > tarball creation process.
> > 
> > Indeed, running e.g. autoreconf -if runs also the prep-gsissh which
> > applies the patches.
> > @mattias: do you have an idea about this? What is the status of the
> > debian packaging for gsi-openssh? I think it would be good if we could
> > at least ourselves provide (binary) debs.
> 
> Would be nice to have, but I'm not sure about how much additional work that
> is. Mattias would have to maintain an additional patch (set) for each
> actively maintained Debian version (i.e. at least Sid, stable and
> oldstable), as the patch (set) for Fedora is much smaller than the regular
> one as they already integrate part of its functionality in their regular
> OpenSSH - IIRC.

Not sure I fully understand. We have a set of patches and debian sources
in the gct tree. Building those would use a specific version of openssh,
not per se matching the OS native version, but that's not such a
problem. Hence building it against different releases of Debian and
Ubuntu shouldn't be that much problem or am I missing something?

> 
> > @frank: in our announcement
> > https://github.com/gridcf/gct/releases/tag/v6.2.20190226 we state that
> > we have precompiled packages for Debian unstable, that's not true for
> > gsi-openssh.
> 
> You're correct, I seem to ignore this fact sometimes. This also applies to
> the packages for SUSE.
> 
> > In any case the wording "pre-compiled packages" is probably a bit
> > misleading.
> 
> I always thought that this term would be common...
> 
> > I'd probably just say "packages", since the src RPMs and
> > debians are also available in those places.
> 
> ...and also imply (or "include") source packages.
Hmm, I don't think I'd call a source RPM a pre-compiled package, the
compiler hasn't yet been called, nor is it actually a dependency for
creating it.

> Can we agree on "OS packages" to set them apart from the IMHO too generic
> term "packages". I mean tarballs can also be considered packages in a way.
Only if you're running Slackware (-;
Both Debian and RedHat are talking about packages, package managers etc.
I'm a bit reluctant calling them *OS* packages, since our packages
aren't really part of the core OS, at least not for EPEL (which by the
way isn't called EOSPEL). In any case this is probably nit-picking...

Cheers,
Mischa

-- 
Nikhef                      Room  H155
Science Park 105            Tel.  +31-20-592 5102
1098 XG Amsterdam           Fax   +31-20-592 5155
The Netherlands             Email msalle at nikhef.nl
  __ .. ... _._. .... ._  ... ._ ._.. ._.. .._..
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.egi.eu/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20190703/32ecf6cd/attachment.p7s>