From: "Jiri Belka" <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Alex Lourie" <alourie(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, Users(a)ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:52:31 PM Subject: Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:12:25 +0002 Alex Lourie <alourie(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All > > As we are working on the configuration utilities (engine-setup, > engine-upgrade and engine-cleanup), we would like to get as much > community involvement as possible. As such, we'd like to hear the > wishes of the community in regards with those tools. 1. do not think yum is everywhere, make package upgrade extensible by some subclasses (apt-get, pkg_add...)

2. usernames are not same everywhere postgres is not everywhere

3. do not make absolute symlinks, some packaging tools scream

4. do not use #!/bin/bash but #!/bin/sh, in 99,9% people are not using anything special from bash anyway

jbelka _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Hi Jiri On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. > > As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is > populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during installation > (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm > package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is upgrade > working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup after > clean install because I was thinking I know what files are important > and was restoring them from a tarball. > > I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is stupid. If > we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, restore > from > backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time with > rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) > I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with rhevm-setup?

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Jiri Belka" <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, Users(a)ovirt.org Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:27:32 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested On 03/14/2013 04:55 PM, Jiri Belka wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:48 +0002 > Alex Lourie <alourie(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi Jiri >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. >>> >>> As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is >>> populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during >>> installation >>> (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm >>> package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is >>> upgrade >>> working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup >>> after >>> clean install because I was thinking I know what files are >>> important >>> and was restoring them from a tarball. >>> >>> I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is >>> stupid. If >>> we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, >>> restore >>> from >>> backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time >>> with >>> rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) >>> >> >> I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with >> rhevm-setup? > > My previous (wrong) procedure to restore old version was: > > rhevm-cleanup, yum remove rhevm\*, rm -rf $dirs, yum install > rhevm\*, > tar xvzpf /backup.tgz, ./restore.sh for DB... > > which was not fully correct as I haven't > known /etc/yum/plugin.d/versionlock.list is touched by rhevm-setup > as > well and thus yum was working very strange during next normal > upgrade. > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > moran/ofer - i remember some discussions on moving from version lock to a yum plugin. i.e., yum will not update the packages if not getting some parameter from engine-upgrade (but will show updates exist), but they will behave normally other than that?

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, Users(a)ovirt.org, "Jiri Belka" <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:48:51 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested On 03/15/2013 08:07 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Jiri Belka" <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, Users(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:27:32 PM >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the >> setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested >> >> On 03/14/2013 04:55 PM, Jiri Belka wrote: >>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:48 +0002 >>> Alex Lourie <alourie(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jiri >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka <jbelka(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>> I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. >>>>> >>>>> As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is >>>>> populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during >>>>> installation >>>>> (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm >>>>> package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is >>>>> upgrade >>>>> working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do >>>>> rhevm-setup >>>>> after >>>>> clean install because I was thinking I know what files are >>>>> important >>>>> and was restoring them from a tarball. >>>>> >>>>> I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is >>>>> stupid. If >>>>> we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, >>>>> restore >>>>> from >>>>> backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time >>>>> with >>>>> rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with >>>> rhevm-setup? >>> >>> My previous (wrong) procedure to restore old version was: >>> >>> rhevm-cleanup, yum remove rhevm\*, rm -rf $dirs, yum install >>> rhevm\*, >>> tar xvzpf /backup.tgz, ./restore.sh for DB... >>> >>> which was not fully correct as I haven't >>> known /etc/yum/plugin.d/versionlock.list is touched by >>> rhevm-setup >>> as >>> well and thus yum was working very strange during next normal >>> upgrade. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> >> moran/ofer - i remember some discussions on moving from version >> lock >> to >> a yum plugin. i.e., yum will not update the packages if not >> getting >> some >> parameter from engine-upgrade (but will show updates exist), but >> they >> will behave normally other than that? > > We cannot mention yum specific features in setup context any > more... this is part of the mission. > > We should reconsider the locking of version - no product uses this. > > After upgrade of packages, product should either know not to start > or upgrade the database when restarted, or better know to work > with older schema. > > The version lock should be removed as soon as possible. > > Alon > I think we can remove the version lock (after relevant preparations/changes)

I still think a yum plugin to not yum update rpms which are part of the engine without a special script/yum paramter invoking them) is worthwhile, since i don't like the concept of someone running yum update, only to find out the upgrade had an issue a week later when restarting the service.