[Engine-devel] Separating engine-setup from ovirt-engine

[Ofer Schreiber]

----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 06:20:43PM +0300, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 2012, at 16:53 , Juan Hernandez wrote:
> > 
> > > On 07/03/2012 03:43 PM, Ofer Schreiber wrote:
> > >> In our days, ovirt-engine-setup is a part of the big
> > >> ovirt-engine rpm.
> > >> This means that each time you need to build yourself a new
> > >> ovirt-engine-setup rpm, you need to compile all the engine.
> 
> Could this possibly be avoided by an optional flag to the build
> script?

It's problematic, as ovirt-engine-setup is a sub rpm of ovirt-engine.
I have no idea how can we just build the setup without the engine, which is compiled in a temporary directory (and removed straight after the build)

> 
> > >> 
> > >> I've started to think about separating it into another git
> > >> (similar to ovirt-iso-uploader), so we will be able to build
> > >> this rpm separately.
> > >> 
> > >> This change is really easy to implement (actually, I have
> > >> already done it locally), and sounds to me like it's the right
> > >> thing to do.
> > >> 
> > >> Thought?
> > >> Ofer.
> > > 
> > > I agree that is the right thing to do. Take into account that
> > > this also
> > > means that ovirt-engine-setup will no longer be a subpackage of
> > > ovirt-engine, so you will have to submit a new package request to
> > > have
> > > it included in Fedora.
> > not quite sure having 10+ packages is a win…
> > - why do you have to have a separate git?
> > - why do you have to recompile when there's a change elsewhere?
> > isn't that a matter of compilation scripts only? (though
> > understand size of the rpm might be an issue…)
> > I personally do not see a point in separating of something
> > inseparable…but that's just me perhaps:)
> > 
> > in other words, if you would kindly explain me the benefits please,
> > I'll shut up:-)
> 
> indeed - having another package, with its own release cycle and
> versioning scheme is quite costy. and isn't ovirt-engine-setup quite
> tightly coupled with Engine's db scheme? (I really do not know, I
> should
> probably shut up, too).

Quite costly? why?

engine-setup is not tightly coupled with the db-scripts, we just execute the createDB script.

>