Re: Request for include python-ethtool-0.8.1

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 07:30:31AM -0400, Mike Burns wrote: > On 06/25/2013 05:12 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:51:47AM -0400, Petr Sebek wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Could you please include python-ethtool-0.8.1 rpm [1] to ovirt-3.3 >>> repositories and to [2]. We need this version of python-ethtool >>> because of this patch [3]. Would be also possible to include >>> libvirt>=1.0.1 to this repositories? >>> >>> [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5538273 [2] >>> http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/nightly/rpm/Fedora/18/x86_64/ >>> [3] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/11519/ >> >> Also, please install this version of python-ethtool on the Fedora >> slaves that run vdsm unit tests. Until we do, we'd have unit test >> failures such as in >> http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_unit_tests_gerrit/2984/testReport/junit... >> >> AttributeError: 'ethtool.etherinfo' object has no attribute >> 'get_ipv4_addresses' >> >> Regards, Dan. >> > > What about EL6? These packages aren't available in EL6, so how do you > handle this issue there? Surprisingly, EL6's python-ethtool has provided this functionality before it was available in Fedora. This obviously caused some confusion.

> > I really don't like hosting packages that are part of a distro but not > part of oVirt on ovirt.org, especially ones like libvirt that are core > functionality. I do not think we have much of a choice here, since we have different release cycles than Fedora. Hopefully, one day we would be distro-independent which would make the problem more acute. For example, we where asked to add support for reporting funny NUMA configs in http://gerrit.ovirt.org/11709a . This requires a newer libvirt than Fedora 18 has. We could revert this in ovirt-3.3 for Fedora 18, but I'd rather require a libvirt from Fedora 18 virt-preview http://fedorapeople.org/groups/virt/virt-preview/fedora-18/x86_64/ This would enable us to expose a clean feature set, regardless of the underlying distribution. > > It's also worth noting that this will have significant impact on > oVirt Node which builds with stock Fedora packages. The inclusion > of a newer libvirt will require that the base image either include a > newer libvirt (unlikely) or that libvirt be updated when installing > the plugin (undesired since it's core functionality). I understand the problem, but it is unescapable that the fact that ovirt-node is going to be used for things other than ovirt means more work, and more differentiation between ovirt-node-for-ovirt and ovirt-node-for-something-else.

> > I have no objection to installing a newer package on the jenkins slaves. > > Mike