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

On 04/19/2012 04:21 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: > 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.... There you go: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/814295