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. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel