On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:09:47AM -0400, Antoni Segura Puimedon wrote:
I would advocate for option 2.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl@redhat.com> Cc: "Juan Hernandez" <jhernand@redhat.com>, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org>, "arch" <arch@ovirt.org>, "users" <users@ovirt.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:25:24 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] [Feedback required][host-deploy] Fedora-19 misses tar at minimal setup
On Jul 30, 2013, at 15:12 , Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@redhat.com> wrote:
Hello All,
Starting the discussion again...
I would like to receive feedback regarding how we should cope with a state presented to use by Fedora.
Fedora-19 minimal setup does not install tar utility which is required to deploy files during the host-deploy process (Hosts->Add Host).
I guess because of 2.8M in size (including translations) -- a standard commonly used utility was removed.
How about filing bug on that? This is such a basic utility I can't imagine anyone removing it.
There are three alternatives :
1. Instruct users who are using minimal installations to manually install tar utility just like they configure repository, dns, etc..
Benefit: simplicity. Benefit: use standard tools. Benefit: lower payload to transmit. Drawback: require tar at destination machine.
2. Do not use tar but self extracting python script, a patch is ready[1].
Benefit: ability to deploy environment in which tar is missing. Drawback: non standard tool at destination machine. Drawback: complexity within our code.
How about option 2.1: convince Fedora to reintroduce tar? It is ironic that Gnome is shipped by default, but not such a staple utility. Where in Fedora did this decision take place? Can it be undone? Is it commonplace these days among other distros to boycot tar? Dan.