RFC: OpenGGSN split/rename

[Max]

On 31.08.2017 13:56, Harald Welte wrote:
> Not so sure if that would really simplify it.  What would be a good idea is
> an explicit --{enable-disable}-gtp for old openbsc.git and an unconditional dependency
> from the new osmo-sgsn.git repository to avoid the "silently built without SGSN support"
> behavior.

>From the point of release automation - it certainly would: right now we treat each
repo either as a library or as a non-library project. This allows us to generate
meaningful changelogs and check for things like missing API/ABI libversion bump.

Supporting both in the same repo would make helper code much more complex. AFAIK
OpenGGSN is the only Osmocom project which produces both library and non-library
packages.
> The osmo-sgsn rename is something I've been pondering in the laforge/osmo-sgsn
> branch where the VTY is introduced.  I've almost decided against it meanwhile,
> given that > 90% of the code still is OpenGGSN code, and credit belongs to the
> creators of that and not to Osmocom.
>
> Also, from an User point-of-view, it will be a different program. All recipes, manuals,
> wiki pages, etc. will need updates.  But then, they will need updates due to the
> vty / config file changes anyway, so it might actually be better to have a new
> name since it "feels" completely different with VTY and related configuration than
> the old OpenGGSN.
I think people tend to associate program's name more with how it "feels like" to work
with it rather than who wrote it. At least I do.

-- 
Max Suraev <msuraev at sysmocom.de> http://www.sysmocom.de/
======================================================================= 
* sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH
* Alt-Moabit 93 
* 10559 Berlin, Germany
* Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B 
* Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Director: Harald Welte