Re: [Condor-devel] Official Debian package for Condor

[Thawan Kooburat <kthawan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I will answer the part related to the packaging itself.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Michael Hanke <michael.hanke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Debian developer who is currently looking into an official
> packaging of Condor for the Debian archive. What I want to achieve is,
> one one hand, a fully functional package that incorporates the best
> features of all previous packaging attempt (the condor CPack approach,
> the debconf setup of the 6.X packaging and the current Ubuntu
> packaging).

We also look into debconf of 6.X package, but we decide to drop it.
The default Debian/RPM will install personal condor configuration and
users have to edit condor_config to get other installation types.

Ubuntu packaging is originally developed by Ian Alderman from Cycle
Computing. Not sure if he is still actively maintaining it or other
developer already taken over.

> On the other hand the packaging needs to be fully compliant
> with the Debian policy.

With the current Debian packages, we also try to follow Debian policy
as much as possible while trying to ship a working Condor package. I
believed that Ubuntu package is a "clipped port" so that it can be
built on Ubuntu build facility.

>On a rather personal side, we also want to
> switch our local cluster from SGE to condor -- which will serve as a
> testbed for this effort. After having worked on the current stable code
> for a bit I was pointed to the git repository by condor-admin and felt
> pure joy seeing the new CMake setup and full history since the beginning
> of time.
>
> I'm compiling a list of questions regarding the packaging -- most of
> them concerning a proper port to Debian's glibc. In the meantime I'd be
> glad if I could have some feedback on the following to topic:
>
> 1. You distribute the classad library as a separate package, arguing
>   that it could be useful outside the scope of condor. For this reason
>   I also want to package it separately.

Just on a side note, Ian created the classad package as part of his
learning to do Condor packaging for Ubuntu. Anyway, I think it does
not hurt to have a separate package.

>   Do you guarantee that the
>   latest available classads download is compatible with the most recent
>   condor? Or in other words, where is the canonical source for
>   classads: is it the condor Git repository, or is it the dedicated
>   classads tarball?
>
> 2. Is there any reason why all libraries in condor are enforced to be
>   statically linked? I'd rather compile shared libs for internal
>   convenience libs instead of artificially inflating binaries and
>   package size by duplicating symbols. I understand that some libs have
>   to be static for good reasons, but clearly this doesn't have to be the
>   case for all those that do not get installed anyway in the current setup.
>
>   Could condor use a CONDOR_LIB macro instead of CONDOR_STATIC_LIB for
>   all libraries that could also be dynamic? By default CONDOR_LIB could
>   also build static ones (to keep the default setup unchanged), but it
>   would offer a way to tell cmake to switch to dynamic ones if desired,
>   without having to patch the code.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Hanke
> http://mih.voxindeserto.de
> _______________________________________________
> Condor-devel mailing list
> Condor-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-devel
>



-- 
Thawan Kooburat

Graduate Student
Department of Computer Science
UW-Madison