On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:00:39PM +0100, Ricardo Graciani wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> My I put forward the issue from the experiments point of view?
>
> Our problem is not if there are 1, 2 or 10 different tags, but
> to know what is the minimum "system" software that we can expect to be
> installed on the site.
>
> For each of these tags we would need a WN installed in a
> "minimalist" approach were we can check if our applications run. If an
> application running on that system fails at some site publishing the
> same TAG due to missing libraries, executables,... the site should
> either align with the reference or change the tag.
>
> I find it great if we can agree on a reduced number of these
> tags, but the work is not final until their "meaning" clearly
> established and sites adhere to it.
>
> Of course the immediate question is who defines these
> references?
So if understand you correctly you should not even have to care about
the tag. Because something is called RHEL3 or FC3 it doesn't mean that
it has the version of glibc/limxml or whatever else that you need.
I think it will be much better if you can provide a list of requirements
that your experiment needs and we can make sure that if we support your
experiment the requirements are there.
Since we are all supposed to have binary compatibility with RHEL there
are many ways that you can provide such a list. For example an rpm
with requires for your software:
rpm -q experiment-system-support --requires
libc.so.6()
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)
libperl.so()
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)
perl >= 1:5.8.0
perl(Getopt::Std)
/bin/bash
libqt-mt.so.3()
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
beecrypt >= 3.0.1
With something like that me as a sysadmin i can easilly check and install
automatically everything from the base system that you need and publish that
as a tag. If the tag is there you *know* that the software that you require
is available and you only have to worry about binary compatibility which in
theory *is* there.
Cheers,
Kostas
|