Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 21:26:37 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 219687] [NEW PORT] net/google-compute-engine: User daemon for Google Compute Engine Message-ID: <bug-219687-21822-FkC2bGpVVV@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-219687-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-219687-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219687 --- Comment #9 from Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com> --- (In reply to Richard Gallamore from comment #7) >> But now it uses version 20170609 instead of 2.4.0, is this ok? I feel th= at 2.4.0 should be somewhere as it is the version used in setup.py, what do= you think? >> I tried to use GH_TAGNAME=3D20170609 with PORTVERSION=3D2.4.0 but it doe= sn't seem to work the way I imagined > Yes, revert back to how it was previously. This was a better solution, ju= st > needed to verify. >=20 >> With these changes now portlint returns: >> # portlint -AC >> looks fine. > This is great. The problem to revert it back I get: # portlint -AC FATAL: Makefile: either PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION must be specified, not b= oth. What is the best way to handle this? > Couple things with the poudriere log. > - Only the port listed in summary is required, in this case > net/google-compute-engine. > - Not sure how the build was invoked, but I usually use poudriere bulk -t= C.(-t > is for extra testing and -C will clean the specified package before build) > I also want to note that poudriere bulk is not the recommended procedure.= From > the porters handbook, testport is suggested method, details here[1]. Thanks, I'll regenerate the poudriere tests like you suggested. >=20 >=20 > When I initially went to the github repo, for some odd reason the README.= md did > not show up and was just blank with no information. Going back to it now,= the > information I was expecting is shown, so this work perfectly for WWW. The= re are > some other items that need to be will need to be looked at. >=20 > - Portname. Usually this is the same as project name, but I don't think t= hat > would be a good fit. google-compute-image would be a bit more accurate, b= ut > more opinions would be best. The github project is called compute-image-packages but it provides 3 diffe= rent packages as described at https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages#packaging. - google-compute-engine - google-compute-engine-init - google-config So I believe that we should have one port for each of them. google-compute-engine-init is not necessary, as it only provides init scrip= ts but I already added rc scripts as .in files in the google-compute-engine package. google-config provide some udev rules, syslog configuration and bash scripts for hostname and dhcp that are not really required for google-compute-engine but I intend to port google-config latter. So as there are 3 packages under the github compute-image-packages project,= I am porting just the google-compute-engine one, so I think it should keep th= is name. > - The comment should match the project comment on github minus "Linux". > Changing this however with the current portname is a violation of having = the > portname in comment so waiting for portname feedback before deciding the > correct comment. Do you mean "Guest Environment for Google Compute Engine" ? It could be, I am just wondering which should be the Comment in the future google-config package > - pkg-message.in[2]. Can you please provide a simple setup guide. It does= n't > need to be long, just a simple how-to startup guide of procedures required > after installing the package for the first time. If configuration is requ= ired, > pointing to a url with more information would be great. The easier configuration is a reboot to make the init scripts to start, I'll write this in pkg-message and I can add a manual guide. >=20 > One more bit of information, how was the port tested? or is the port curr= ently > being used in production? I am testing it by hand in a virtual machine running at Google Cloud Engine platform. The available tests in the upstream project are just mock tests that verifi= es if the software calls the right functions in the right order, it doesn't re= ally check if it works or not and it can be biased as it was derivated directly = from the code. To enable the tests I'll also need to port each test, increasing = the number of patches and the maintenance complexity. As I believe the mock tests are more important to the developer then to Fre= eBSD (as it is implemented in the project), I don't think we need to bother to p= ort them. What do you think? --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #8) Thank you Kubilay for reviewing this, I am updating the package with the suggested changes and I'll attach it soon. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-219687-21822-FkC2bGpVVV>