Re: [Engine-devel] Separating engine-setup from ovirt-engine

----- 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. >