4:43 p.m.
In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine rpm.
This means that each time you need to build yourself a new ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you
need to compile all the engine.
I've started to think about separating it into another git (similar to
ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this rpm separately.
This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already done it locally), and
sounds to me like it's the right thing to do.
Thought?
Ofer.
4:53 p.m.
On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine
rpm.
This means that each time you need to build yourself a new ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you
need to compile all the engine.
I've started to think about separating it into another git (similar to
ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this rpm separately.
This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already done it locally), and
sounds to me like it's the right thing to do.
Thought?
Ofer.
I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that this also
means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to have
it included in Fedora.
--
Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta
3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain
Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.
6:20 p.m.
On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine rpm.
> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new ovirt-engine-setup rpm,
you need to compile all the engine.
>
> I've started to think about separating it into another git (similar to
ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this rpm separately.
>
> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already done it locally),
and sounds to me like it's the right thing to do.
>
> Thought?
> Ofer.
I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that this also
means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to have
it included in Fedora.
not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
- why do you have to have a separate git?
- why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere? isn't that a
matter of compilation scripts only? (though understand size of the rpm might be an
issue…)
I personally do not see a point in separating of something inseparable…but that's just
me perhaps:)
in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please, I'll shut up:-)
--
Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta
3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain
Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
10:23 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine rpm.
>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new ovirt-engine-setup
rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build script?
>>
>> I've started to think about separating it into another git (similar to
ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this rpm separately.
>>
>> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already done it
locally), and sounds to me like it's the right thing to do.
>>
>> Thought?
>> Ofer.
>
> I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that this also
> means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
> ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to have
> it included in Fedora.
not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
- why do you have to have a separate git?
- why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere? isn't that a
matter of compilation scripts only? (though understand size of the rpm might be an
issue…)
I personally do not see a point in separating of something inseparable…but that's
just me perhaps:)
in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please, I'll shut up:-)
indeed - having another package, with its own release cycle and
versioning scheme is quite costy. and isn't ovirt-engine-setup quite
tightly coupled with Engine's db scheme? (I really do not know, I should
probably shut up, too).
10:29 p.m.
On 07/03/2012 10:23 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine rpm.
>>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new ovirt-engine-setup
rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build script?
indeed.
or make rpm after 'cd packaging' would only build the packaging, or
configure script on what to build, etc.
10:22 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On 07/03/2012 10:23 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>>>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big
>>>> ovirt-engine rpm.
>>>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
>>>> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
>
> Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build
> script?
indeed.
or make rpm after 'cd packaging' would only build the packaging, or
configure script on what to build, etc.
1. the "cd packaging" option is possible, but it means we will have another
Makefile and spec file inside the packaging dir, just for engine-setup.
This will actually separate engine-setup rpm from the ovirt-engine base rpm, and will
require the same release-cycle/versioning/etc as Dan stated.
Doing this will just save us the external git, as it will have to be a separate package,
just inside the same git
2. configure script is fine, but as long as we're a sub-package of ovirt-engine, we
will have to build the engine every time we want to build the setup.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
10:16 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
> > On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
> >> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big
> >> ovirt-engine rpm.
> >> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
> >> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build
script?
It's problematic, as ovirt-engine-setup is a sub rpm of ovirt-engine.
I have no idea how can we just build the setup without the engine, which is compiled in a
temporary directory (and removed straight after the build)
> > > >> I've started to
think about separating it into another git
> >> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build
> >> this rpm separately.
> > > >> This change is
really easy to implement (actually, I have
> >> already done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right
> >> thing to do.
> > > >> Thought?
> >> Ofer.
> > > I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into
account that
> > this also
> > means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
> > ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
> > have
> > it included in Fedora.
> not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
> - why do you have to have a separate git?
> - why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere?
> isn't that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though
> understand size of the rpm might be an issue…)
> I personally do not see a point in separating of something
> inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
> in other words, if you would kindly explain me the
benefits please,
> I'll shut up:-)
indeed - having another package, with its own release cycle and
versioning scheme is quite costy. and isn't ovirt-engine-setup quite
tightly coupled with Engine's db scheme? (I really do not know, I
should
probably shut up, too).
Quite costly? why?
engine-setup is not tightly coupled with the db-scripts, we just execute the createDB
script.
12:11 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:16:17AM -0400, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
> > >> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big
> > >> ovirt-engine rpm.
> > >> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
> > >> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
>
> Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build
> script?
It's problematic, as ovirt-engine-setup is a sub rpm of ovirt-engine.
I have no idea how can we just build the setup without the engine, which is compiled in a
temporary directory (and removed straight after the build)
>
> > >>
> > >> I've started to think about separating it into another git
> > >> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build
> > >> this rpm separately.
> > >>
> > >> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have
> > >> already done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right
> > >> thing to do.
> > >>
> > >> Thought?
> > >> Ofer.
> > >
> > > I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that
> > > this also
> > > means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
> > > ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
> > > have
> > > it included in Fedora.
> > not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
> > - why do you have to have a separate git?
> > - why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere?
> > isn't that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though
> > understand size of the rpm might be an issue…)
> > I personally do not see a point in separating of something
> > inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
> >
> > in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please,
> > I'll shut up:-)
>
> indeed - having another package, with its own release cycle and
> versioning scheme is quite costy. and isn't ovirt-engine-setup quite
> tightly coupled with Engine's db scheme? (I really do not know, I
> should
> probably shut up, too).
Quite costly? why?
It is another package to release, that requires its own errata process
and inter-package dependencies.
If you envisage a user that would like to use ovirt-engine-setup of one
version, with an ovirt-setup of another one, then go ahead. I simply do
not see the use case for this, only the complications.
engine-setup is not tightly coupled with the db-scripts, we just execute the createDB
script.
>
9:41 a.m.
On Jul 4, 2012, at 12:11 , Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:16:17AM -0400, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>>>>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big
>>>>> ovirt-engine rpm.
>>>>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
>>>>> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine
I'd expect that when you need a proper rpm then you have to go through all the pain
and build everything from scratch to make it perfect.
If you want to test something and debug, etc, you'd not build a full blown rpm anyway,
would you?
Well, either way, if you'd have 15 minutes for me I'd appreciate you show me how
it's being done today….
thanks,
michal
>> Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the
build
>> script?
>
> It's problematic, as ovirt-engine-setup is a sub rpm of ovirt-engine.
> I have no idea how can we just build the setup without the engine, which is compiled
in a temporary directory (and removed straight after the build)
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've started to think about separating it into another git
>>>>> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build
>>>>> this rpm separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have
>>>>> already done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right
>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought?
>>>>> Ofer.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that
>>>> this also
>>>> means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
>>>> ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
>>>> have
>>>> it included in Fedora.
>>> not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
>>> - why do you have to have a separate git?
>>> - why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere?
>>> isn't that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though
>>> understand size of the rpm might be an issue…)
>>> I personally do not see a point in separating of something
>>> inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
>>>
>>> in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please,
>>> I'll shut up:-)
>>
>> indeed - having another package, with its own release cycle and
>> versioning scheme is quite costy. and isn't ovirt-engine-setup quite
>> tightly coupled with Engine's db scheme? (I really do not know, I
>> should
>> probably shut up, too).
>
> Quite costly? why?
It is another package to release, that requires its own errata process
and inter-package dependencies.
If you envisage a user that would like to use ovirt-engine-setup of one
version, with an ovirt-setup of another one, then go ahead. I simply do
not see the use case for this, only the complications.
>
> engine-setup is not tightly coupled with the db-scripts, we just execute the createDB
script.
>
>>
10:36 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine
>> rpm.
>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
>> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
>>
>> I've started to think about separating it into another git
>> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this
>> rpm separately.
>>
>> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already
>> done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right thing to
>> do.
>>
>> Thought?
>> Ofer.
>
> I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that this
> also
> means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
> ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
> have
> it included in Fedora.
not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
- why do you have to have a separate git?
I don't, we can do it in the same one. still, it will be a separate package...
- why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere?
isn't
that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though understand size
of the rpm might be an issue…)
Well, the it's not just a "build script", we're doing this inside RPM.
The process is as follows:
1. create tarball from the git
2. build srpm with the spec and the tarball
3. build the rpm from the srpm, which means:
- open the tarball in a temp director
- compile everything in the same temp dir
- put the compiled binaries in the right directory (some sort of chroot env, like
/home/ofer/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/usr/share/ovirt-engine)
- create the actual rpm
AFAIK, this is the rpm-build way, I don't really have control over these steps.
I personally do not see a point in separating of something
inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please,
I'll shut up:-)
Benefits:
1. 10 seconds to build the setup rpm (this can be done also in the same git, but
separating the spec/makefile)
2. No need to rebuild the entire engine for a small TEXT change in the setup (same)
3. No need to rebuild (and re-test) the setup with every change to the engine. (same)
The only argument I have in favor of creating a separate git is that it sounds to me
better than having two separate rpm spec/make in the same git.
>
> --
> Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3,
> planta
> 3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain
> Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red
> Hat S.L.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
11:41 a.m.
On 07/04/2012 09:36 AM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
>>> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big ovirt-engine
>>> rpm.
>>> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
>>> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
>>>
>>> I've started to think about separating it into another git
>>> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build this
>>> rpm separately.
>>>
>>> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have already
>>> done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right thing to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> Thought?
>>> Ofer.
>>
>> I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that this
>> also
>> means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
>> ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
>> have
>> it included in Fedora.
> not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
> - why do you have to have a separate git?
I don't, we can do it in the same one. still, it will be a separate package...
> - why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere? isn't
> that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though understand size
> of the rpm might be an issue…)
Well, the it's not just a "build script", we're doing this inside RPM.
The process is as follows:
1. create tarball from the git
2. build srpm with the spec and the tarball
3. build the rpm from the srpm, which means:
- open the tarball in a temp director
- compile everything in the same temp dir
- put the compiled binaries in the right directory (some sort of chroot env, like
/home/ofer/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/usr/share/ovirt-engine)
- create the actual rpm
AFAIK, this is the rpm-build way, I don't really have control over these steps.
Correct, that is how the RPM build process works. It is not impossible
to make it work in a different way, but then it becomes impossible to
maintain very quickly.
> I personally do not see a point in separating of something
> inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
>
> in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please,
> I'll shut up:-)
Benefits:
1. 10 seconds to build the setup rpm (this can be done also in the same git, but
separating the spec/makefile)
2. No need to rebuild the entire engine for a small TEXT change in the setup (same)
3. No need to rebuild (and re-test) the setup with every change to the engine. (same)
The only argument I have in favor of creating a separate git is that it sounds to me
better than having two separate rpm spec/make in the same git.
--
Dirección Comercial: C/Jose Bardasano Baos, 9, Edif. Gorbea 3, planta
3ºD, 28016 Madrid, Spain
Inscrita en el Reg. Mercantil de Madrid – C.I.F. B82657941 - Red Hat S.L.
4523
days inactive
4525
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dan Kenigsberg -
Itamar Heim -
Juan Hernandez -
Michal Skrivanek -
Ofer Schreiber