[aur-requests] [PRQ#5845] Orphan Request for opensm

james harvey jamespharvey20 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 00:04:03 UTC 2016

That being said, I do like the idea of (and have released) extra AUR
packages that have features added.  Momentarily there will be a new
AUR package opensm-systemd-multiple-interfaces which will have
Fedora's extra configuration file functionality.  It will be
dependency-compatible with opensm, so you can uninstall opensm and
install opensm-systemd-multiple-interfaces.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, james harvey <jamespharvey20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> opensm AUR package follows Arch's philosophy of vanilla upstream
> releases, when possible.  The AUR package's only deviation from
> upstream is that it includes systemd support, which upstream does not.
> Contrary to your statement, the opensm AUR package has functionality
> for multiple interfaces, because upstream (openfabrics.org) has it.
> Their functionality requires the sytem to have a opensm.conf file for
> each interface.
> What I think your complaint refers to is that the opensm AUR package
> follows the developer's (openfabrics.org) way of providing the
> functionality, versus the way Fedora provides it.  Fedora does it
> differently for two reasons.
> First, Fedora looked at it and said for most users, each interface's
> opensm.conf file would be identical except for the GUIDs.  So, they
> made an extra configuration file to a single opensm.conf could be
> shared between all interfaces, and the extra configuration file would
> only have the GUIDs.
> It's not that I don't like that option.  I just really like Arch's
> vanilla where possible philosophy.  The main reason I switched to Arch
> is so when the developer changes something, you don't have to wait for
> the linux distribution to adapt their changes to the new releases.
> And, I don't think Fedora's "we don't like how they did it" philosophy
> justifies a deviation here, when the functionality is there and works,
> just in a way they wouldn't have made it.
> Second, Fedora noted they didn't like when a user upgraded packages
> that the user's multiple interface configuration would be overwritten
> during the upgrade.  I'm not sure how Fedora handles /etc files during
> upgrades, but we have pacman, so we don't have this problem.  When
> pacman upgrades a package with a new config file, it writes to a
> .pacnew config file.  The system maintainer is expected to handle the
> changes, if needed, and there are programs such as Dotpac which can
> help with that.
> Please tell me where I'm wrong, I'm certainly open to re-evaluating my
> position.  But, I think if you want a simpler way to run multiple
> interfaces than how upstream wants it to happen, that's a dicussion to
> have upstream, not in Arch's AUR.  I'd probably even give a thumbs up
> to such a change, if it were made upstream.  There's no reason why
> they couldn't have their /etc GUID parameter either be a single GUID,
> or a comma separated list.
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:30 AM,  <notify at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
>> jmsq [1] filed a orphan request for opensm [2]:
>> Useful code for multiple interfaces gutted out of opensm.launch and
>> never reintroduced.
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/jmsq/
>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/opensm/

More information about the aur-requests mailing list