On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
Il 24/09/2014 09:44, Sven Kieske ha scritto:
On 24/09/14 09:13, Federico Simoncelli wrote:
You probably missed the first part "we were using qemu-kvm/qemu-img in the spec file". In that case you won't fail in any requirement.
Basically the question is: was there any problem on centos6 before committing http://gerrit.ovirt.org/31214 ?
Federico: as we checked a few minutes ago, it seems there's no problem in requiring qemu-kvm/qemu-img in the spec file. Only issue is that if non rhev version is installed a manual "yum update" is required for moving to the rhevm version.
Right. Without the patch, RPM does not enforce qemu-kvm-rhev. So our code has to check for qemu-kvm-rhev functionality, instead of knowing that it is there. Furthermore, we had several reports of users finding themselves without qemu-kvm-rhev on their node, and not understanding why they do not have live merge.
Of course there was a problem, please follow the link in this very commit to the according bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127763
In short: you can not use live snapshots without this updated spec file.
And it's a PITA to install this package by hand, you must track it's versions yourself etc pp. you basically lose all the stuff a proper spec file gives you.
Well, since the -rhev package is now available in 3.4, 3.5 and master repos it shouldn't be a PITA anymore.
PS: I also don't get the "we want to get vdsm in every distribution" a) it was never in any distro, it was in epel, which is a third party repository anyway, so you can just provide it via ovirt repo imho.
Historically, Vdsm has been part of Fedora before it has been part of ovirt! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745510 The EPEL build was added much later
b) no one packages vdsm for debian, ubuntu, gentoo, arch, suse, $nameyourdistro or I completely missed it, so why treat fedora in a special way? Don't misunderstand me, it would be cool if you have packages for every distro, or even bsd based stuff, but I think this is still a long way.
Indeed. But it would be even longer if we take my suggested step backwards.
c) will anyone use vdsm without ovirt? is this even possible? so imho you need ovirt repos anyway?
I don't belive Vdsm is soon to be used by anything outside oVirt. But if software purists win, oVirt would publish only tarballs. Fedora/Debian/whatever would build, package, and deploy them all, and the ovirt repo would become redundant. I did not expect to hear much support for keeping Vdsm in Fedora. Given what I've heard, how about taking the in-between road? - Keep Vdsm in Fedora, abiding to Fedora rules. - Hope that Engine and qemu-kvm-rhev join, too. - Until they do, build vdsm.rpm with non-Fedora quirks (such as the qemu-kvm-rhev requirement) http://gerrit.ovirt.org/33367 spec: do not require qemu-kvm-rhev on Fedora http://gerrit.ovirt.org/33368 spec: allow all archs in Fedora Dan.