[node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node

Doron Fediuck dfediuck at redhat.com
Mon Mar 31 06:55:53 UTC 2014 


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> To: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay 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 3:49:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay at redhat.com>
> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>, arch at ovirt.org, "Douglas
> > Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>, "node-devel"
> > <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:45:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>, arch at ovirt.org, "Douglas
> > > Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>, "node-devel"
> > > <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:53:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabiand at redhat.com>, arch at ovirt.org, "Douglas
> > > > Landgraf" <dlandgra at redhat.com>, "node-devel"
> > > > <node-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:51:05 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- 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.
> > > 
> > > If we keep in parallel different distributions per single version of
> > > ovirt,
> > > we should somehow mark it in the binary output.
> > > 
> > > For example we have experimental fedora-21 image based on
> > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.2, while release is based on fedora-19.
> > 
> > The purpose of ovirt-node is to be distribution agnostic (see esx server).
> > If we have experimental image than it should be marked as such - not that
> > it
> > is based on f-21.
> > The developers should know exactly what distro/version it was built from, I
> > don't think that users care.
> 
> I am unsure users will not care if we can offer options for multiple images
> that works with the same ovirt milestone.
> But this is not that important at this point.
> 

+1.
I had a long conversation with a user who insists on Debian based hosts.
I tried to explain him he should consider it as black box / appliance but
he wouldn't want to hear about it.

> > 
> > Barak
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Arch mailing list
> Arch at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>

More information about the node-devel mailing list