[node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node

[Barak Azulay]

----- 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: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:29:23 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: Monday, March 31, 2014 12:20:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node
> > 
> 
> > > As there is no reason why I would not like centos hosts for my fedora
> > > engine
> > > :)
> > > 
> > > And there is no reason why we should not allow keeping these available
> > > side-by-side.
> > 
> > The logic of selection the most appropriate upgrade suggest different.
> 
> This should be solved by provides statement.
> 
> > Guys again if users need to know what distro ovirt-node is constructed from
> > than it misses the entire point of the node
> 
> If you base your implementation on specific distribution, then I do mind
> which, as I want to modify, build and use customized versions, and has no
> knowledge how to do that in red hat based os.
> 
> As long as fedora instability and methods or centos/rhel old component
> enforcements are used, why not allowing debian users to feel comfortable as
> well, allowing them to pull this into their direction? Maybe at the end
> stable debian is the right way to go?
> 
> Had you created your tiny distribution based on busybox, libvirt, vdsm etc...
> cross compile all from sources, then you would have been right, as it is our
> own distribution that fully controlled by the ovirt community.

If a user need to customize the hypervisor he can use a regular OS of his choice configured and tailored to his needs (Fedora ..., CentOS ...Debian, Gentoo ...)
This is a valid use case and effort for the community.

While having a black box hypervisor, should be the exact fit to just run VMs in oVirt environment.
Why to handle specific OS configuration in a much more complex and less intuitive environment to manage ?

Guys I really think this entirely misses the black-box approach.

I don't mind moving to our own tiny distro as long as it's a single image to release and maintain 

The effort of maintaining multiple ovirt-nodes based on distro and distro-version and ovirt-version creates an unmanageable test matrix that all the community might loose from  


> 
> Alon
>