[ENBD] Bring enbd back in Debian?

[Daniel Steen]

Hi guys,

Sorry to butt into your thread, I just thought I'd utter an encouraging
word here (not that you seem to need it :-)  ).  I think it's great that
your moving enbd back to debian.  I'm putting together a proposal to use
it at my workplace, and the fact that it's an "official" package will
make it that much easier.

Thanks guys!  Keep up the good work!

-Dan


Bas van Schaik wrote:

>Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>"Also sprach Bas van Schaik:"
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>At the moment I have made it easy for you to change the sitings of
>>>>things via this stuff passed to the compiler ...
>>>>
>>>>gcc -DCONFDIR="\"/etc\"" -DPIDDIR="\"/var/run\"" -DSTATEDIR="\"/var/state/enbd\""  ...
>>>>
>>>>That's produced in the Makefile (which comes from Makefile.in) and that
>>>>needs patching. It produces those values based on sysconfdir,
>>>>localstatedir from ./configure, but you probably want to edit the
>>>>Makefile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I'm not I understand this fully. I think it's the easiest way for me to
>>>configure such things in the "main" Makefile, which is extracted in the
>>>package root. To be sure we're talking about the same file, here's the
>>>directory structure after extracting:
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm talking about the nbd/Makefile[.in], which is responsible for making
>>the userspace code. The top level Makefile calls that under the utils:
>>target:
>>
>>  
>>utils: $(BUILD)/Makefile
>>       $(MAKE) -C $(BUILD) VPATH=$(VPATH)/nbd \
>>               ^^^^^^^^^^ by this time the nbd/Makefile has been copied to there
>>                           CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS) \
>>                                 -I$(BUILD) \
>>                                 -I$(VPATH)/kernel/linux-$(KERNELMAJOR).x/include \
>>                                 -I$(LINUXDIR)/include \
>>                                   $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) \
>>                                 -DDEBUG=$(DEBUG)" \
>>                           EXTRA_LIBS="$(EXTRA_LDFLAGS) \
>>                                       $(LIBS) $(EXTRA_LIBS)" 
>>
>>and I suppose one could override some settings by calling the sub-make with
>>different parameters. It looks to me as though ...
>>
>>    STATEDIR          (/var/state/enbd)
>>    PIDDIR            (/var/run)
>>    SYSCONFDIR        (/etc)
>>
>>are what possibly need overriding.
>>
>>However, in my opinion it would likely be neater to patch Makefile.in 
>>so that the overrides were not necessary.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>OK, I'll look at patching Makefile.in. However, there will be some
>additional minor changes in the toplevel Makefile. I'll send you a copy
>of the diffs when ready.
>
>  
>
>>>Until now, this Makefile was the only file which needed editing (not
>>>much anyway), so if it's possible to put those CONFDIR, PIDDIR and
>>>STATEDIR-parameters in there (also), it would save me some patching!
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It is that one that you can use to do the eoverrides in, but I'm not sure
>>how to avoid patching IT.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>By the way, I think the "debian"-directory in the archive is not really
>>>needed for anything anymore. It would be easier if this directory was
>>>removed, because the Debian buildscripts are complaining about a
>>>duplicate "debian" directory (my own build config, and the pre-existing
>>>one). I've extracted all the needed information from it (and it'll stay
>>>old archives anyway), so I think there's no reason to keep it there.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Please make a proper "debian" dir and I will take the prototype from you
>>and put it there.  Meanwhile you can move that one out the way.  Is
>>there a protocol for this?  WOuld it help if I named it "DEBIAN" or
>>debian.botch?  
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>Why do you want to supply a "debian" directory with the source code? The
>debian directory is useless for those who want to build enbd from
>source, it's only used to create a .deb binary. So there's no reason at
>all to include the debian directory in the source tar.gz-file, only the
>package maintainer (that would be me) will need it.
>
>  
>
>>>I'm currently testing enbd from packages on real hardware, and it seems
>>>to work great! Today I'll try to package all stuff from /etc in the
>>>common-package with some configuration examples. Do you want me to split
>>>the manpages for the client and server? It's not that much work and I
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The client and server conf man page (enbd.conf), you mean? That needs
>>two man pages pointing at it, enbd_server.conf and enbd_client.conf (as
>>I remember). I don't recall how to do pointers in nroff.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>Yes, but also the manpages of the client and server binaries. So, when
>finished, there'll be four different manpages:
>enbd_client.conf(5) and enbd-client(8) in the enbd-client package
>enbd_server.conf(5) and enbd-server(8) in the enbd-server package
>
>What do you mean with "pointers" exactly?
>
>  
>
>>>think it'll save you some time. Just let me know.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Please set up the debian part as best you can! I've forgotten how to
>>define what goes where in a debian package (though of course I can figure
>>it if need be).
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>I'll manage the differences between the source distribution and the
>target debian package, but if you need some help with the source package
>(for example, editing manpages, as I suggested), I would be glad to help!
>
>-- Bas
>_______________________________________________
>ENBD mailing list
>ENBD at lists.community.tummy.com
>http://lists.community.tummy.com/mailman/listinfo/enbd
>  
>