[naemon-dev] livestatus commit

[Daniel Wittenberg]

Sorry :) I vote same as upstream

Dan
On Apr 22, 2014 12:23 PM, "Sven Nierlein" <Sven.Nierlein at consol.de> wrote:

> I am confused now. Upstream is '.o', we changed to '.so'.
>
>
> On 4/22/14 19:04, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
> > I was leaning toward the "o" and not "so", but it does concern me a bit
> now that Sven pointed out upstream is still "so" and that could get really
> confusing, we already have our own version of livestatus, and to add our
> own file extension would make things confusing as well.  I guess at this
> point, since we have been trying to figure out how to merge with upstream
> and get back to one version, I think we should stick with "so" until all
> that is worked out and go with whatever upstream is.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Anton Löfgren <alofgren at op5.com<mailto:
> alofgren at op5.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I suppose it goes without saying that I'm strongly opposed to the
> idea
> >     of (re-)introducing the previous hackery to do things wrong.
> >
> >     It's got nothing to do with it being "the op5 way". It's got
> everything
> >     to do with not going out of our way to make things more confusing
> than
> >     they need to be. In essence, my argument is: look in your /usr/lib/
> >     directory and see if you can find a single shared object that has
> the .o
> >     extension (that isn't a nagios/naemon broker module).
> >
> >     I really feel that this is the wrong time to be adamant about
> backwards
> >     compatibility, since it doesn't in any practical sense affect users
> in
> >     any way we can't deal with.
> >
> >     Sedding the config file on upgrade is perfectly acceptable in my
> >     opinion. Especially for a piece of software that is not even 1.0!
> >     Remember how we refrained from releasing 1.0 to be able to get rid of
> >     old cruft? This is it (or, some of it).
> >
> >     The one point I might agree with is that the documentation would be
> >     marginally misleading. Is this really (I mean, really really) a
> problem,
> >     however? Presumably, we're offering a suite with batteries included
> to
> >     use naemon-livestatus, and I'm guessing that includes the one
> relevant
> >     part of the documentation you're referring to, namely that
> >     broker_module=<path>/livestatus.o should be
> >     broker_module=<path>/livestatus.so. I don't see how this is any
> harder
> >     than simply adding a disclaimer to the docs pointing out this
> >     discrepancy. Besides, it's not like the livestatus documentation is
> >     fully reliable with naemon-livestatus as is, anyway. The fork exists
> for
> >     a reason.
> >
> >     I have not heard of any effort to get anything upstreamed. Do you
> have any
> >     more details on that?
> >
> >     Anyways, this feels a bit like an uphill struggle for myself, since
> I'm
> >     not really mandated to decide or vote either way. Regardless, that's
> my
> >     take on it. If the core team decides differently, I'll begrudgingly
> >     accept that decision.
> >
> >     /Anton
> >
> >     On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 02:58:13PM +0200, Sven Nierlein wrote:
> >     > So how do we proceed here? I'd like to see working builds again.
> So can
> >     > we just keep it livestatus.o and do not break everything. This
> would save
> >     > us from sed hacks in our packages and confused users. Unless we
> want
> >     > to copy all livestatus documenation and replace livestatus.o with
> livestatus.so
> >     > there too? Definitly not a good idea. In fact, i thought we would
> try to
> >     > get our changes upstream so we don't have to maintain our own
> livestatus
> >     > anymore? This rename just makes things more complicated, so we
> would
> >     > have to do the same sed hackery again when we switch back to the
> original
> >     > livestatus, or is this no longer an option?
> >     >
> >     > So i would rename livestatus.so back to livestatus.o in the
> naemon-livestatus
> >     > Makefile and keep the path %{_libdir}/%{name}/livestatus.o. This
> is an easy
> >     > change and does not break anything except its not the op5 way. And
> >     > honestly, i don't care about that.
> >     > Does anyone have a better solution?
> >     >
> >     >  Sven
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 4/21/14 22:20, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
> >     > > It looks like the path also changed, was that on purpose too?
> >     > >
> >     > > From:
> >     > > %attr(0644,root,root) %{_libdir}/%{name}/livestatus.o
> >     > >
> >     > > To:
> >     > > %attr(0644,root,root)
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/%{name}-livestatus/livestatus.so
> >     > >
> >     > > I've got the changed staged to fix up the spec file, probably
> want to add a search/replace in the spec to update the config from
> livestatus.o to livestatus.so too, but will get this out there first to fix
> our builds.
> >     > >
> >     > > Dan
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Anton Löfgren <alofgren at op5.com<mailto:
> alofgren at op5.com> <mailto:alofgren at op5.com <mailto:alofgren at op5.com>>>
> wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >     Naemon doesn't care either way as long as the correct path
> is configured, which it will be even for existing users as long as the post
> step I mention earlier is in place.
> >     > >
> >     > >     I'm not suggesting we start enforcing any kind of convention
> just for the sake of it.
> >     > >
> >     > >     /Anton
> >     > >
> >     > >     On 21 Apr 2014 21:41, "Daniel Wittenberg" <
> dwittenberg2008 at gmail.com <mailto:dwittenberg2008 at gmail.com> <mailto:
> dwittenberg2008 at gmail.com <mailto:dwittenberg2008 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >         I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way, just
> that if we decide we want to change it, or even consider it in the future,
> now is the best time to do it.  Can we have it use either .o or .so and
> just have livestatus be .so for now?  That would allow backwards
> compatibility but move in the direction we think we should ?
> >     > >
> >     > >         I updated the Fedora build to use .so for now so at
> least the builds are going again.
> >     > >
> >     > >         Dan
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >         On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Sven Nierlein <
> Sven.Nierlein at consol.de <mailto:Sven.Nierlein at consol.de> <mailto:
> Sven.Nierlein at consol.de <mailto:Sven.Nierlein at consol.de>>> wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >             Hey,
> >     > >
> >     > >             Basically every ndo module uses .o extension. At
> least ndo,
> >     > >             mod-gearman, dnx and livestatus. Thats all i know.
> >     > >             This change screws every existing naemon
> installation. Not that
> >     > >             there are so many yet, but we should be very careful
> when changing
> >     > >             fundamental things. So if the only reason for this
> change is, that
> >     > >             this is more correct in terms of describing the file
> content, i'd vote
> >     > >             for keeping things like they are unless we have a
> good reason
> >     > >             to change that.
> >     > >
> >     > >              Sven
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.monitoring-lists.org/archive/naemon-dev/attachments/20140422/d6a924e6/attachment-0001.html>