10:31 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>
To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com>, dcaro(a)redhat.com
Cc: "vdsm-devel" <vdsm-devel(a)fedorahosted.org>, "oVirt Mailing
List" <users(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:33:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Users] Low quality of el6 vdsm rpms
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:31:04AM +0100, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> Il 12/11/2013 10:34, Patrick Hurrelmann ha scritto:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > sorry for this rant, but...
Thanks for ranting. Community testing and ranting are to be cherished.
We must improve in the points you have raised.
> >
> > I now tried several times to test the beta 3.3.1 rpms, but they can't
> > even be installed in the most times.
>
> I'm glad to read you're testing 3.3.1. May I ask you to add yourself to
> http://www.ovirt.org/Testing/Ovirt_3.3.1_testing ?
>
> > One time it required a future
> > selinux-policy, although the needed selinux fix was delivered in a much
> > lower version. Now the rpms have broken requirements. It requires
> > "hostname" instead of "/bin/hostname". This broken
requirement is not
> > included in the vdsm 3.3 branch, so I wonder where it comes from?
> > Anyway. So I proceeded and tried to build vdsm myself once again.
> > Currently the build fails with (but worked fine some days ago):
> >
> > /usr/bin/pep8 --exclude="config.py,constants.py" --filename
> > '*.py,*.py.in' \
> > client lib/cpopen/*.py lib/vdsm/*.py lib/vdsm/*.py.in tests
> > vds_bootstrap vdsm-tool vdsm/*.py vdsm/*.py.in vdsm/netconf
> > vdsm/sos/vdsm.py.in vdsm/storage vdsm/vdsm vdsm_api vdsm_hooks vdsm_reg
> > vdsm/storage/imageRepository/formatConverter.py:280:29: E128
> > continuation line under-indented for visual indent
> >
> >
> > - How can the quality of the vdsm builds be increased? It is frustrating
> > to spend time on testing and then the hosts cannot even be installed to
> > broken vdsm rpms.
I suspect you are not interested in "excuses" for each of the failures,
let us look forwards. My conclusions are:
- Do not require non-yet-existing rpms. If we require a feature that is
not yet in Fedora/Centos, we must wait. This is already in effect, see
for example http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/20248/ and
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/19545
- There's a Jenkins job to enforce the former requirement of spec
requirement. David, Sandro, any idea why it is not running these days?
it does run, but we can't enable it since it's still failing:
http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_3.3_install_rpm_sanity_gerrit/label=fed...
once that's fixed, the job will be enabled and run per patch.
- Keep the docs updated. Our Jenkins slaves have pep8-1.4.6, so we
should update
http://www.ovirt.org/Vdsm_Developers#Installing_required_packages
accordingly - and more importantly, make that version available.
Sandro, who built the python-pep8-1.4.6 that sits on the el6 Jenkins
slave? Could you make it publicly available? (I can volunteer
http://danken.fedorapeople.org again)
i tend to agree here with patrick on using non released pep8 packages, that are not
available
via rpms, but only via python-pip.
the jenkins slaves were updated via pyhon-pip and not via yum upgrade.
> > - How are the builds prepared? Is there a Jenkins job that prepares
> > "stable" rpms in addition to the nightly job? Or is this totally
> > handcrafted?
no jenkins job for stable builds.
just nightly builds published from this job which build only rpms from master.
http://jenkins.ovirt.org/view/Packaging/job/vdsm_create_rpms/
> > - How can it be that the rpm spec differs between the 3.3
branch and
> > released rpms? What is the source/branch for el6 vdsm rpms? Maybe I'm
> > just tracking on the wrong source tree...
Based on your reports, you are tracking the correct tree; but please
describe which differences do you see (and between what releases
exactly).
Regards,
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users