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

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.