[aur-requests] [PRQ#5845] Orphan Request for opensm
jm.mulesa at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 00:13:42 UTC 2016
Fair enough, I didn't realize that upstream had the functionality provided
differently. I'll investigate making that work with my configuration.
On Jul 14, 2016 5:04 PM, "james harvey" <jamespharvey20 at gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, james harvey <jamespharvey20 at gmail.com>
> 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  filed a orphan request for opensm :
>> Useful code for multiple interfaces gutted out of opensm.launch and
>> never reintroduced.
>>  https://aur.archlinux.org/account/jmsq/
>>  https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/opensm/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-requests