[node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node

[Barak Azulay]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>
> To: arch at ovirt.org, "node-devel" <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> Cc: "Douglas Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:37:05 PM
> Subject: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> 
> Hey,
> 
> currently [0] - or since the split into base image and layered image -
> the versioning of Node hasn't been really resolved.
> 
> I'd like to change the versioning of Node with the goal to make it
> directly obvious what oVirt version a Node is targeting.
> 
> Before I continue let me clarify that this is primarily about the
> versioning of the Node ISO.
> The versioning of the wrapper-rpm can possibly follow the naming of the
> ISO, as long as we make yum happy.
> Also this is not about the ovirt-node (pkg) versioning, only about the
> iso image.
> 
> Currently the ISO naming is as follows:
> 
>   ovirt-node-iso-<node-version>-<number>.<number>.<build-date>.\
>   vdsm<ovirt-target-version>.<dist>.iso
> 
> (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.0.4-1.0.201401291204.vdsm34.el6.iso)
> 
> The main pain point of this is IMO the vdsm34 snippet - because it
> breaks the whol envr and is currently just added after the edit-node
> pass.
> 
> I'm proposing the following scheme:
> 
>   ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.iso
> 
> (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-20140328.1.el6.iso)
> 
> This should make it obvious to the user what ISO to use.
> 
> 
> Now about the rpm scheme. We can not change this as long as the Engine
> logic has not been updated to use the proposed metadata file:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081969 (Node)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081970
> 
> Once these two bugs have been addressed we can also change the rpm
> naming.
> In general I'd like to follow the iso naming, thus:
> 
> ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.rpm
> 
> (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-20140328.1.el6.rpm)
> 
> A couple of examples:
> # Newer build, same day
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.2
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.4.0-20140328.2
> 
> # Same build
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.1
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 == 0:3.4.0-20140328.1
> 
> # Older and newer build, same day
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.0
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.0
> 
> # Same ver, one year later
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20150328.1
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.4.0-20150328.1
> 
> # New ver
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.5.0-20140328.1
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.5.0-20140328.1
> 
> # Older ver, newer build date
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.3.0-20150328.1
> 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.3.0-20150328.1
> (Would not get installed by yum automatically)
> 
> In general the names of the iso and rpm should not be relevant for
> Engine to decide about updates. The metadata file of the rpm will be
> used for that.
> 
> Finally, are there objections to of changing the ISO versioning scheme
> now? Or does someone see problems with it?

I assume that this new schema is handling also the frist upgrade from the old name schema.

Barak


> 
> Greetings
> fabian
> 
> ---
> [0] http://plain.resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.4/iso/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> node-devel mailing list
> node-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel
>