Re: [Engine-devel] Jar versions in ovirt-engine

On 19/04/12 17:17, Juan Hernandez wrote: > On 04/19/2012 04:10 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: >> On 19/04/12 16:53, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>> On 04/19/2012 03:22 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: >>>> On 19/04/12 13:26, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>> On 04/19/2012 12:00 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: >>>>>> On 18/04/12 14:04, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>>>> On 04/18/2012 09:51 AM, Ofer Schreiber wrote: >>>>>>>> Ever wondered why the version of oVirt's first release is 3.0.0_0001? >>>>>>>> The answer is simple - We use ovirt-engine jar's version as our "main" release version. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I think the current versioning scheme is ugly. Actually, I can't name even one open-source project using "_" in it's version. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What can we do about it? We have couple of options: >>>>>>>> 1. Leave the engine alone, and use a separate versioning scheme (e.g - use just 3.1.0 as the main version for next release) >>>>>>>> 2. Remove "_" from engine jars >>>>>>>> 3. Do nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well as the reasons to use such an unusual versioning scheme. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> Ofer Schreiber >>>>>>>> oVirt Release Manager >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Arch mailing list >>>>>>>> Arch(a)ovirt.org >>>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From my point of view using the 0001 suffix in the names of the jar >>>>>>> files is not a big problem, but I agree that using it in the release >>>>>>> number is ugly, and it produces issues/discussions during packaging. I >>>>>>> vote for option #1: use 3.1.0 for the next main version. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The original versioning scheme was due to a bug in maven2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Juan, I've read some of the Java packaging concepts, but didn't see >>>>>> (or missed) thoughts about modular versioning (ie- artifacts). >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are the things to consider here; >>>>>> >>>>>> - Current RPM's are using the version declared in the POM files. >>>>>> Should this concept remain? >>>>>> * I think it should remain, as other packaging systems should >>>>>> be able to use it as well and end-up is the similar project version. >>>>> >>>>> I can talk from the Fedora point of view only, as that is what I know a bit. >>>>> >>>>> In Fedora there can be only one version of a given jar file installed in >>>>> the system, so there is no point in adding a version number to the name >>>>> of that jar file: the version number is already in the package >>>>> containing that jar file. In fact if the build generates jar files with >>>>> version numbers in the name the RPM should remove those jar files. That >>>>> is why I say that having any kind of numbers in the names of the jars is >>>>> not important: we have to remove them anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Packaging guidelines (see [1]) recommend to avoid version numbers in the >>>>> jar files, and I think that makes sense. >>>>> >>>> This would be the easy solution. >>> >>> Again talking only about Fedora: >>> >>> Having just one version of every jar is not simple at all, in fact it >>> requires a lot of work to make sure that the selected versions work >>> properly together. >>> >> See below, we actually share the same view... >> >>>> What happens when you have more than a single Java app, and both >>>> using different versions of the same jar file? This means that one >>>> of the app's will need to bring it along and use it locally, rather >>>> than system-level usage. >>> >>> What happens is that both applications have to be patched so that they >>> work correctly with the same version of that jar file. If possible the >>> patches are pushed upstream, if not they applied as part of the package. >>> Embedding another version of that jar file in one of the applications is >>> not allowed, in fact that is something that packagers have to undo quite >>> often. >>> >> See below... converging into the latest jar is what I figured that >> will happen. Still, as I see it such constraints are not really needed. >>>> I'm guessing if we assume such a constraint the solution will be >>>> to force all app's to use latest jar version, which isn't trivial. >>> >>> I agree completely, it is not trivial at all, that is where packagers >>> expend most of their time. >>> >>>> So some distro's will allow of concept of slotted installation. >>>> This means I currently /have/ 2 working versions of postgres in >>>> my laptop (using Gentoo)- >>>> >>>> equery l postgresql-server >>>> * Searching for postgresql-server ... >>>> [IP-] [ ] dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.11:8.4 >>>> [IP-] [ ] dev-db/postgresql-server-9.1.3:9.1 >>>> >>>> The same works on my laptop for Maven, Java, Python and many others. >>>> If you think about it, Fedora supports slotted installation for >>>> kernels, and then added alternatives to do that with other packages >>>> as well (mta, Java..). So there's a need and a way to handle several >>>> versions of the same library (regardless of the language), and >>>> we should be careful when taking such assumptions. At least try >>>> to be as flexible as possible, to allow others to join in. >>> >>> In Fedora that is allowed only for major versions: java-1.7.0 and >>> java-1.6.0, maven 2 and maven 3, so on, but not usually for minor >>> versions (there are exceptions). >>> >> It's a good start. >> >>>> So learning from Fedora I'd say- let the RPM install in a versioned >>>> folder (ie- /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.5.0-gcj/..), and leave the jar >>>> files without versions for now. In the future we may need to change it >>>> as some disrto's may use sym links to indicate the latest jar. >>>> In such a case the RPM will stripdown the version from the artifact. >>> >>> What we are currently doing with the Fedora ovirt-engine package is that >>> jar files are installed to /usr/share/java/ovirt-engine, with names like >>> bll.jar, common.jar, compat.jar, etc. The RPM takes care of stripping >>> the version numbers generated by the upstream build. This doesn't >>> preclude other distros from doing it in a different way, using version >>> numbers or symlinks. >>> >> Why not /usr/share/java/ovirt-engine-3/ ? I do not see someone using >> engine3 and engine4 on the same machine, but he may need to have >> engine-config v3 to handle previous instance and engine-config v4 >> to handle current instance, so we could have a good infra if we >> keep the major version. > > The only thing I have against ovirt-engine-3 is that the packaging > guidelines recommend to use /usr/share/java/%{name}, where %{name} is > the name of the package, and the package has already been approved with > the name ovirt-engine. Next major version (not 3.1, that is a minor > version) can perfectly be named ovirt-engine4 or ovirt4-engine. Maybe open a bz for it so we'll remember? Make sure to add this thread so we'll know what happened....