[ovirt-users] [ovirt-devel] Building vdsm within Fedora

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:57:21AM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> Il 24/09/2014 09:44, Sven Kieske ha scritto:
> > 
> > 
> > On 24/09/14 09:13, Federico Simoncelli wrote:
> >> You probably missed the first part "we were using qemu-kvm/qemu-img in
> >> the spec file". In that case you won't fail in any requirement.
> >>
> >> Basically the question is: was there any problem on centos6 before
> >> committing http://gerrit.ovirt.org/31214 ?
> 
> Federico: as we checked a few minutes ago, it seems there's no problem in requiring qemu-kvm/qemu-img in the spec file.
> Only issue is that if non rhev version is installed a manual "yum update" is required for moving to the rhevm version.

Right. Without the patch, RPM does not enforce qemu-kvm-rhev. So our
code has to check for qemu-kvm-rhev functionality, instead of knowing
that it is there.  Furthermore, we had several reports of users finding
themselves without qemu-kvm-rhev on their node, and not understanding
why they do not have live merge.

> > Of course there was a problem, please follow the link in this very
> > commit to the according bugzilla:
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127763
> > 
> > In short: you can not use live snapshots without this updated spec file.
> > 
> > And it's a PITA to install this package by hand, you must track
> > it's versions yourself etc pp. you basically lose all the stuff
> > a proper spec file gives you.
> 
> Well, since the -rhev package is now available in 3.4, 3.5 and master repos it shouldn't be a PITA anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> > PS: I also don't get the "we want to get vdsm in every distribution"
> > a) it was never in any distro, it was in epel, which is a third party
> > repository anyway, so you can just provide it via ovirt repo imho.

Historically, Vdsm has been part of Fedora before it has been part of ovirt!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745510
The EPEL build was added much later

> > b) no one packages vdsm for debian, ubuntu, gentoo, arch, suse,
> > $nameyourdistro or I completely missed it, so why treat fedora
> > in a special way? Don't misunderstand me, it would be cool if you
> > have packages for every distro, or even bsd based stuff, but I think
> > this is still a long way.

Indeed. But it would be even longer if we take my suggested step
backwards.

> > c) will anyone use vdsm without ovirt? is this even possible?
> > so imho you need ovirt repos anyway?

I don't belive Vdsm is soon to be used by anything outside oVirt. But if
software purists win, oVirt would publish only tarballs.
Fedora/Debian/whatever would build, package, and deploy them all, and
the ovirt repo would become redundant.

I did not expect to hear much support for keeping Vdsm in Fedora. Given
what I've heard, how about taking the in-between road?

- Keep Vdsm in Fedora, abiding to Fedora rules.
- Hope that Engine and qemu-kvm-rhev join, too.
- Until they do, build vdsm.rpm with non-Fedora quirks (such as the
  qemu-kvm-rhev requirement)

http://gerrit.ovirt.org/33367  spec: do not require qemu-kvm-rhev on Fedora
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/33368  spec: allow all archs in Fedora

Dan.