----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barak Azulay" <bazu...@redhat.com> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com> > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <fabi...@redhat.com>, arch@ovirt.org, "Douglas Landgraf" > <dland...@redhat.com>, "node-devel" > <node-de...@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. Alon _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list Arch@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
