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
> commit to the according bugzilla:
> 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!
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
> 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
spec: do not require qemu-kvm-rhev on Fedora
spec: allow all archs in Fedora