<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-06-03 2:59 GMT+08:00 Justin Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:justin.brown@fandingo.org" target="_blank">justin.brown@fandingo.org</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
I recently came across the LWN article on oVirt 3.4<br>
(<a href="http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/600370/dfa9cdd4f5ee0bb3/" target="_blank">http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/600370/dfa9cdd4f5ee0bb3/</a>) and was<br>
discussing the lack of Fedora 20 support with an oVirt contributor,<br>
bkp.<br>
<br>
It's been 4 months since I last looked at running oVirt. I use Fedora<br>
20 on all of my infrastructure, so I was quite surprised that there is<br>
still not support for running the engine on F20. Anyways, rather than<br>
just complaining, I figured it would be more helpful to volunteer some<br>
time to fix the issue.<br>
<br>
1) I've tried looking through the oVirt bug reports to see what's<br>
happening with Fedora 20. So far, I have identified three issues that<br>
prevent 3.4 from working. Fedora includes sos-3, sos doesn't have<br>
support for all ovirt plugins, and only has Wildfly instead of<br>
JBoss-as. The full list of bugs is listed in<br>
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060198" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060198</a>.<br>
<br>
2) I was looking through the various oVirt yum repositories and<br>
noticed that oVirt provides JBoss-AS along with tons of packages for<br>
the el6 platform; however, for both Fedora 19 and 20, oVirt almost<br>
entirely uses built-in packages. This seems like strange behavior<br>
where the project has gone to great lengths to make sure oVirt works<br>
on platforms with outdated or nonexistent packages, but won't override<br>
or use alternates on platforms that contain overly new packages. Could<br>
someone explain why oVirt doesn't package these for Fedora,<br>
particularly jboss-as?<br></blockquote><div>IMO fedora is more like a environment for development purpose, and I guess oVirt didn't catch up with fedora's changes ? (I mean oVirt don't have support for wildfly)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
3) I'm not making accusations or trying to cause trouble, but could<br>
someone explain to an outsider what happened with Fedora 20 support?<br>
oVirt is a complicated project to say the least and, after a brief<br>
look at some of the RPMs last night, the packages are just as complex.<br>
Basically, I'm trying to figure out if there were some intractable<br>
problems that prevented oVirt from -- more or less -- shipping tweaked<br>
Fedora 19 dependencies for oVirt on Fedors 20, or whether it was more<br>
a lack of manpower, a lack of interested user base, or perhaps<br>
<br>
I'm just getting started on digesting the packages, but I think it<br>
should be feasible to pull the problematic packages from F19, tweak<br>
them to ovirt-* versions (eg. ovirt-sos), and tweak the oVirt packages<br>
to use the non-system paths for those packages. Publish the whole<br>
thing through COPR, and if oVirt is happy with the results, merge them<br>
into the official packages and repository.<br>
<br>
I know that there will be some apprehension about the project taking<br>
on maintaining these dependency packages, but I'm looking to get 3.4<br>
working on Fedora 20 as a stopgap until 3.5 is released with support<br>
for native packages.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Justin<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Users@ovirt.org">Users@ovirt.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>