----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabi...@redhat.com> > To: arch@ovirt.org, "node-devel" <node-de...@ovirt.org> > Cc: "Douglas Landgraf" <dland...@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.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-20140328.1.el6.rpm) > > A couple of examples: > # Newer build, same day > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.2 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.4.0-20140328.2 > > # Same build > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 == 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > > # Older and newer build, same day > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20140328.0 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.0 > > # Same ver, one year later > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.4.0-20150328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.4.0-20150328.1 > > # New ver > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.5.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 < 0:3.5.0-20140328.1 > > # Older ver, newer build date > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 0:3.3.0-20150328.1 > 0:3.4.0-20140328.1 > 0:3.3.0-20150328.1 > (Would not get installed by yum automatically) > > In general the names of the iso and rpm should not be relevant for > Engine to decide about updates. The metadata file of the rpm will be > used for that. > > Finally, are there objections to of changing the ISO versioning scheme > now? Or does someone see problems with it?
I assume that this new schema is handling also the frist upgrade from the old name schema. Barak > > Greetings > fabian > > --- > [0] http://plain.resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.4/iso/ > > _______________________________________________ > node-devel mailing list > node-de...@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel > _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list Arch@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch