[Users] [Engine-devel] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested

[Alon Bar-Lev]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org, Users at ovirt.org, "Jiri Belka" <jbelka at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:48:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
> 
> On 03/15/2013 08:07 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Jiri Belka" <jbelka at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: engine-devel at ovirt.org, Users at ovirt.org
> >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:27:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the
> >> setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
> >>
> >> On 03/14/2013 04:55 PM, Jiri Belka wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:48 +0002
> >>> Alex Lourie <alourie at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Jiri
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka <jbelka at redhat.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is
> >>>>> populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during
> >>>>> installation
> >>>>> (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm
> >>>>> package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is
> >>>>> upgrade
> >>>>> working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do
> >>>>> rhevm-setup
> >>>>> after
> >>>>> clean install because I was thinking I know what files are
> >>>>> important
> >>>>> and was restoring them from a tarball.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is
> >>>>> stupid. If
> >>>>> we would know 100% which files are involved, just install,
> >>>>> restore
> >>>>> from
> >>>>> backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with
> >>>> rhevm-setup?
> >>>
> >>> My previous (wrong) procedure to restore old version was:
> >>>
> >>> rhevm-cleanup, yum remove rhevm\*, rm -rf $dirs, yum install
> >>> rhevm\*,
> >>> tar xvzpf /backup.tgz, ./restore.sh for DB...
> >>>
> >>> which was not fully correct as I haven't
> >>> known /etc/yum/plugin.d/versionlock.list is touched by
> >>> rhevm-setup
> >>> as
> >>> well and thus yum was working very strange during next normal
> >>> upgrade.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Users mailing list
> >>> Users at ovirt.org
> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>>
> >>
> >> moran/ofer - i remember some discussions on moving from version
> >> lock
> >> to
> >> a yum plugin. i.e., yum will not update the packages if not
> >> getting
> >> some
> >> parameter from engine-upgrade (but will show updates exist), but
> >> they
> >> will behave normally other than that?
> >
> > We cannot mention yum specific features in setup context any
> > more... this is part of the mission.
> >
> > We should reconsider the locking of version - no product uses this.
> >
> > After upgrade of packages, product should either know not to start
> > or upgrade the database when restarted, or better know to work
> > with older schema.
> >
> > The version lock should be removed as soon as possible.
> >
> > Alon
> >
> 
> I think we can remove the version lock (after relevant
> preparations/changes)

Great!

> I still think a yum plugin to not yum update rpms which are part of
> the
> engine without a special script/yum paramter invoking them) is
> worthwhile, since i don't like the concept of someone running yum
> update, only to find out the upgrade had an issue a week later when
> restarting the service.

If we do not want to stop engine service on rpm installation, we can have some kind of notification in engine that the software was updated and a restart is required.

Alon