On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Fabrice Bacchella < fabrice.bacchella@orange.fr> wrote:
There is a lot of other dependencies to declare other than postfix, MTA would have been better.
I agree, and suggest to open an RFE on ovirt-host (and elsewhere? didn't check) to change the Requires:.
ovirt-host have a lot of dependencies:
Indeed
rpm -q --requires ovirt-host NetworkManager-config-server cockpit cockpit-dashboard cockpit-machines-ovirt cockpit-networkmanager cockpit-ovirt-dashboard dracut-fips firewalld glusterfs-rdma ipa-client katello-agent mailx net-snmp net-snmp-utils ovirt-host-dependencies = 4.2.3-1.el7 ovirt-hosted-engine-setup ovirt-provider-ovn-driver postfix python-firewall rng-tools rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 screen sysstat tcpdump vdsm-hook-ethtool-options vdsm-hook-fcoe vdsm-hook-openstacknet vdsm-hook-vfio-mdev vdsm-hook-vhostmd vdsm-hook-vmfex-dev
Many of thee are useless depending of your setup.
Indeed, but there is obviously a trade-off here. If we can solve a bug that affects, say, 30% of the setups, by requiring a package that takes 300KB disk space, and has (hopefully) no security/administrative/etc. implications, I'd say it's worth adding.
rng-tools, for example, but my hardware don't provides any of the needed random generators. screen, tcpdump ? I'm quite surprised. glusterfs-rdma, I'm not doing glusterfs, and I don't have any hardware to do rdma
I am pretty certain that each was added with a good reason. Sometimes you can find the reason in the git commit, or in the linked bug. If you disagree about a specific item, after accepting the general reasoning above, feel free to open a bug. If you disagree with the entire reasoning, it means, practically, that you want more than one ovirt-node, perhaps many more, which will require much more work. Would you volunteer to maintain the various flavors? ovirt-node-gluster-postfix, ovirt-node-ovn-postfix, ovirt-node-gluster-ovn-postfix, ovirt-node-postfix, ovirt-node-sendmail, ... While I do not follow closely maintenance of ovirt-host, I was involved in deciding we do want it, and so far think it was a good decision. Before that, we had partial lists of requirements duplicated over ovirt-host-deploy, ovirt-hosted-engine-setup, ovirt-node (and then ovirt-release, which new ovirt-node uses), and always forgot to update some of them when adding/updating stuff. Current state, of having everything in a single (rather large, admittedly) ovirt-host meta-package is much better. -- Didi