Hi, while developing ovirt-engine-dashboard it has been raised the issue that just for having ovirt-engine directories in place on the filesystem, the whole engine has to be required. Some of the directories currently owned by ovirt-engine package and its subpackages are used also by other projects. In order to provide them whitout installing the whole engine a new sub package is needed, let's call it ovirt-engine-filesystem. There are several example of this approach in Fedora, to see them: $ dnf list "*filesystem*" A bug has been opened to track this RFE[1] and a patch has been submitted some time ago[2] We didn't reach an agreement on creating the sub package or not, major objection was: "is ok for the whole distribution but for us this is an overkill" Following Open Decision Framework, I'd like to get some more feedback from others since generally seems to be a good idea but I'd like to understand if this may cause issues to other developers / projects and why it's considered an overkill. In Fedora packaging guidelines[3], the topic is covered by "File and Directory Ownership" section. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333880 [2] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/57271 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner... -- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
Hi, for now, ovirt-engine-dashboard spec file [1] contains Requires: ovirt-engine-webadmin-portal >= 4.0.2 [1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-engine-dashboard.git;a=blob;f=packag... Dashboard RPM needs to create files (symlinks) in /usr/share/ovirt-engine/ui-plugins directory, which is owned by `backend` sub-pkg, however the Requires declaration is for `webadmin-portal` sub-pkg to indicate relationship with WebAdmin UI (since Dashboard is technically a UI plugin). The downside of current approach is having dependency on specific sub-pkg just for the sake of putting some files into above directory within Dashboard's %install section. But I'm not an expert on RPM packaging / guidelines etc. so I just wanted to clarify the motivation behind this. Vojtech ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo@redhat.com> To: "devel" <devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 4:58:18 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] [RFE] Add ovirt-engine-filesystem sub-package
Hi, while developing ovirt-engine-dashboard it has been raised the issue that just for having ovirt-engine directories in place on the filesystem, the whole engine has to be required.
Some of the directories currently owned by ovirt-engine package and its subpackages are used also by other projects. In order to provide them whitout installing the whole engine a new sub package is needed, let's call it ovirt-engine-filesystem.
There are several example of this approach in Fedora, to see them: $ dnf list "*filesystem*"
A bug has been opened to track this RFE[1] and a patch has been submitted some time ago[2]
We didn't reach an agreement on creating the sub package or not, major objection was: " is ok for the whole distribution but for us this is an overkill"
Following Open Decision Framework, I'd like to get some more feedback from others since generally seems to be a good idea but I'd like to understand if this may cause issues to other developers / projects and why it's considered an overkill.
In Fedora packaging guidelines[3], the topic is covered by "File and Directory Ownership" section.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333880 [2] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/57271 [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner...
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
participants (2)
-
Sandro Bonazzola -
Vojtech Szocs