From ingvar at linpro.no  Sun Sep  9 19:23:17 2007
From: ingvar at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:23:17 +0200
Subject: Patches for 1.1.1 in distribution packages
Message-ID: <46E44825.3070800@linpro.no>

I just recently requested varnish-1.1.1-3 to be included in 
fedora-7-updates-testing, that is, the final stage before inclusion in 
f7. It has already been included in the fedora testing (pre f8) branch.  
My fedora spesific release -3 is like the upstream vanilla release 
varnish-1.1.1, but with cs1913 from svn patched in, as it is in the 
FreeBSD port. Are there other patches (stability or bugfix) patches that 
should be included in distribution updates?

Ingvar



From des at linpro.no  Mon Sep 10 07:30:49 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:30:49 +0200
Subject: Patches for 1.1.1 in distribution packages
In-Reply-To: <46E44825.3070800@linpro.no> (Ingvar Hagelund's message of "Sun, 
	09 Sep 2007 21:23:17 +0200")
References: <46E44825.3070800@linpro.no>
Message-ID: <ujrveaj5652.fsf@false.linpro.no>

Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar at linpro.no> writes:
> I just recently requested varnish-1.1.1-3 to be included in
> fedora-7-updates-testing, that is, the final stage before inclusion
> in f7. It has already been included in the fedora testing (pre f8)
> branch.  My fedora spesific release -3 is like the upstream vanilla
> release varnish-1.1.1, but with cs1913 from svn patched in, as it is
> in the FreeBSD port. Are there other patches (stability or bugfix)
> patches that should be included in distribution updates?

Nothing that has passed QA yet, because I haven't had time.  I'll look
into it while I'm in Denmark next week.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no


From des at linpro.no  Wed Sep 12 08:18:17 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:18:17 +0200
Subject: 8 days until 1.1.2
Message-ID: <ujrodg81ely.fsf@false.linpro.no>

I haven't started merging patches yet, but feel free to bump version
numbers etc. in preparation for the release.

See http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/Releases/1.1.1 for a list
of bugs which I hope to fix in 1.1.2.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no


From ingvar at linpro.no  Wed Sep 12 10:22:17 2007
From: ingvar at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:22:17 +0200
Subject: 8 days until 1.1.2
In-Reply-To: <ujrodg81ely.fsf@false.linpro.no>
References: <ujrodg81ely.fsf@false.linpro.no>
Message-ID: <46E7BDD9.50603@linpro.no>

* Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
> I haven't started merging patches yet, but feel free to bump version
> numbers etc. in preparation for the release.
> 
> See http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/Releases/1.1.1 for a list
> of bugs which I hope to fix in 1.1.2.

The relase tarball should have a specfile without the ./autogen.sh line
in redhat/varnish.spec. On the other hand, it is nifty to have this in
the svn sources, as it makes it possible to fast test builds directly
from the svn branch.

Dag-Erling, could you just add to your relase-remember-todo-list to
comment out this line in the specfile (this was not done in 1.1.1).

Ingvar

-- 


From des at linpro.no  Wed Sep 12 15:46:48 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:46:48 +0200
Subject: 8 days until 1.1.2
In-Reply-To: <46E7BDD9.50603@linpro.no> (Ingvar Hagelund's message of "Wed, 12
	Sep 2007 12:22:17 +0200")
References: <ujrodg81ely.fsf@false.linpro.no> <46E7BDD9.50603@linpro.no>
Message-ID: <ujrsl5j7uon.fsf@false.linpro.no>

Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar at linpro.no> writes:
> The relase tarball should have a specfile without the ./autogen.sh line
> in redhat/varnish.spec. On the other hand, it is nifty to have this in
> the svn sources, as it makes it possible to fast test builds directly
> from the svn branch.

How about just making it conditional on the presence of configure?

[ -f configure ] || ./autogen.sh

That way, it will work in both cases.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no


From ingvar at linpro.no  Wed Sep 12 16:47:52 2007
From: ingvar at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:47:52 +0200
Subject: 8 days until 1.1.2
In-Reply-To: <ujrsl5j7uon.fsf@false.linpro.no>
References: <ujrodg81ely.fsf@false.linpro.no> <46E7BDD9.50603@linpro.no>
	<ujrsl5j7uon.fsf@false.linpro.no>
Message-ID: <46E81838.8030108@linpro.no>

* Ingvar Hagelund
>> The relase tarball should have a specfile without the ./autogen.sh line
>> in redhat/varnish.spec. On the other hand, it is nifty to have this in
>> the svn sources, as it makes it possible to fast test builds directly
>> from the svn branch.
* Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
>> How about just making it conditional on the presence of configure?
>>
>> [ -f configure ] || ./autogen.sh
>>
>> That way, it will work in both cases.
True, but it violates the rpm build requirements. If autogen must be run, then automake must be installed, which makes it a build requirement. We don't want to add unneccessary build requirements. Installing automake drags in all kind of stuff on redhat based systems. Most end users won't want or need that. Much easier to just  change this at relase time. The change doesn't even need to be in svn.

If you want the svn source to be as close to release as "no change", I'd rather comment that line out of svn and add a note to the README.redhat on how to change that when building from svn.

Ingvar



From ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no  Fri Sep 14 20:37:47 2007
From: ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:37:47 +0200
Subject: varnish-1.1.1-3 accepted in fedora7. el4 and el5 packages uploaded to
	sf
Message-ID: <46EAF11B.6010904@linpro.no>

ssia, more or less. varnish-1.1.1 is now included in fedora7. I built
packages for el4 and el5 today and uploaded to sf.net. Only i386 and
x86_64 packages, as I haven't a ppc/ppc64 buildbox with redhat/fedora
available at the moment.

Dag-Erling, do you think we should delete the more-or-less obsolete
1.1.1-1 packages from sf.net? They are almost identical to 1.1.1-3. Only
diff is the added patch with cs1913 from svn.

Ingvar


From ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no  Sat Sep 15 21:28:17 2007
From: ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:28:17 +0200
Subject: Considering varnish for EPEL
Message-ID: <46EC4E71.9060706@linpro.no>

I recently got an email from Warren Togami, RedHat, who asked if I
considered packing varnish for EPEL. EPEL is "Extra Packages for
Enterprise Linux", a project under the Fedora umbrella. Its target is to
extend RHEL and its derivates, like CentOS, with a set of maintained,
stable packages. I want to consider this, as it will probably extend the
user base, which is a good thing indeed. The packaging policy of EPEL is
on the other hand quite strict, as it follows more or less the policy
for RHEL. This means that fixed version must remain supported in the
lifespan of a major release of RHEL. Security fixes must be backported.
Minor bugfixes (like varnish-1.1.1 -> 1.1.2) are not merged till next
minor RHEL update. ABI and configuration file spec must remain
compatible within all minor updates. Major upgrades (varnish-1.x ->
varnish-2.x) will not be accepted till next major RHEL release, and so
on. A more detailed outline is available at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies

While such policies are quite usual in the day-to-day production in the
BSD and Linux distribution world, I don't think I can handle them on my
own. EPEL has no own security team, I think. Will the development team
support me on maintaining a "fixed" release of for example varnish-1.1.2
on el4 and el5 for years to come?

Ingvar


From des at linpro.no  Mon Sep 17 11:32:46 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:32:46 +0200
Subject: Considering varnish for EPEL
In-Reply-To: <46EC4E71.9060706@linpro.no> (Ingvar Hagelund's message of "Sat, 
	15 Sep 2007 23:28:17 +0200")
References: <46EC4E71.9060706@linpro.no>
Message-ID: <ujr8x75il29.fsf@false.linpro.no>

Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no> writes:
> Will the development team support me on maintaining a "fixed"
> release of for example varnish-1.1.2 on el4 and el5 for years to
> come?

Unfortunately, I don't think we have the manpower to do that...

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no


From des at linpro.no  Mon Sep 17 11:35:33 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:35:33 +0200
Subject: varnish-1.1.1-3 accepted in fedora7. el4 and el5 packages
	uploaded to sf
In-Reply-To: <46EAF11B.6010904@linpro.no> (Ingvar Hagelund's message of "Fri, 
	14 Sep 2007 22:37:47 +0200")
References: <46EAF11B.6010904@linpro.no>
Message-ID: <ujr4phtikxm.fsf@false.linpro.no>

Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar.hagelund at linpro.no> writes:
> Dag-Erling, do you think we should delete the more-or-less obsolete
> 1.1.1-1 packages from sf.net? They are almost identical to 1.1.1-3. Only
> diff is the added patch with cs1913 from svn.

Yes, we can probably just delete 1.1.1-1 and upload 1.1.1-3 instead.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no


From ingvar at linpro.no  Mon Sep 17 11:52:25 2007
From: ingvar at linpro.no (Ingvar Hagelund)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:52:25 +0200
Subject: varnish for EPEL?
In-Reply-To: <46EA3591.9040106@linpro.no>
References: <46E973BD.3040605@redhat.com> <46EA3591.9040106@linpro.no>
Message-ID: <46EE6A79.7020807@linpro.no>

CC to the varnish-dist list.

* Warren Togami
>> Do you plan on building varnish into EPEL-4 and EPEL-5?  They would be
>> very useful there to run on RHEL-4 and RHEL-5 servers.

* Ingvar Hagelund skrev:
> Yes, I do. I just have, as most others in the business it seems, too
> little time :-)

I looked over the "Packaging Guidelines and Policies for EPEL" document.
during the weekend. Since there are no security team for EPEL, it looks
like I would have to maintain a fixed stable release of for example
varnish-1.1.2 myself, for the whole lifespan of RHEL4 and/or 5. This
means quite a lot of time for a fixed version, with the risk of finding
serious bugs and security holes over time. Being no C coder, I would not
be able to backport bug- and security fixes from newer versions of
varnish to this stable release myself, when the 1.1 series is obsoleted.
I asked the upstream developers if they would be able to help me
maintaining such a relase, but they don't have the manpower to do this.

With the current policies for EPEL, I'm sorry to say that I can't take
this responsibility alone. Any help on this would of course be very
welcome, and as the Fedora maintainer, I would welcome an invitation to
co-maintain the package in EPEL if others step forward.

I will continue to produce packages of new upstream versions for el4 and
el5, and put them on sourceforge.

Ingvar

-- 
Buddha wears an iPod


From des at linpro.no  Thu Sep 20 11:59:05 2007
From: des at linpro.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:59:05 +0200
Subject: 1.1.2 delayed
Message-ID: <ujrbqbxsg3a.fsf@false.linpro.no>

I came back from Denmark with a severe cold, and I still haven't
finished merging and documenting changes to 1.1.2, so I'm going to
have to delay the release until Monday.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no