[node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node

[Barak Azulay]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> To: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>
> Cc: arch at ovirt.org, "Douglas Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>, "node-devel" <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:57:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 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 think that we should have upstream version for ovirt node as any other
> upstream version we have.
> 
> I also do not like dates embed within release as it will make our lives
> difficult when we have proper bug tracking system in place.
> 
> I am unsure what 'iso' means... I think it should be removed or converted to
> subpackage.
> 
> Should we also consider parallel versions of different distributions(?)
> (fc19, fc20).

Doesn't this miss the entire node purpose ? a user should not care what platform was used to build the node.



> 
> Pre-release:
> ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-0.$(sequence).$(branch).$(date).dist.rpm
> 
> Released:
> ovirt-node-iso-3.4.z-1.dist.rpm
> 
> Please note that the downstream component is eliminated in upstream, what
> important in upstream is the source tarball....
> 
> ovirt-ndoe-iso-3.4.z.tar.gz
> 
> Regards,
> Alon
> _______________________________________________
> Arch mailing list
> Arch at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
> 
> 
>