On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:07 PM Marcin Sobczyk <msobc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On yesterday's vdsm weekly call, we were discussing the need of making > Python 3 vdsm RPM packages. > > Some facts: > > - it doesn't make a lot sense to spend much time on trying to package > everything - it's completely impossible i.e. to run vdsm without having > 'sanlock' module > - our current vdsm.spec file is crap > > Two non-exclusive propositions were raised: > > - let's try to make a quick-and-dirty patch, that will completely > overwrite the existing 'vdsm.spec' (effectively making it Python 3-only) > for testing purposes, and maintain it for a while > - in the meantime, let's write a completely new, clean and beautiful > spec file in an package-by-package, incremental manner, (also Python > 3-only) that would eventually substitute the original one
I'm not sure I understand that second option. I am afraid of fresh starts; I'd very much prefer to start from the sh*tty thing we have, and evolve it. A lot of time, re-writing a piece of software is tempting, but existing code is imbued with knowledge of past problems, which is often forgotten when you do a hard cut. Cleaning %files should be an easy first step; I think that Gal's jinja-based generation of py2/py3 packages is sane. Can you explain why not just to carry these patches over? > > The quick-and-dirty spec file would be completely unsupported by CI. The > new one would get a proper CI sub-stage in 'build-artifacts' stage. > > The steps needed to be done are: > > - prepare autotools/Makefiles to differentiate Python 2/Python 3 RPM builds > - prepare the new spec file (for now including only 'vdsm-common' package) > - split 'build-artifacts' stage into 'build-py27' and 'build-py36' > sub-stages (the latter currently running on fc28 only) > > The only package we can start with, when making the new spec file, is > 'vdsm-common', as it doesn't depend on anything else (or at least I hope > so...). > > There were also propositions about how to change the new spec file in > regard to the old one (like making 'vdsm' package a meta-package). This > is a good time for these propositions to be raised, reviewed and > documented (something like this maybe? > https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EXN1Iwq-OPoc2A5Y3PJBpOiNC10ugx6eCE72K63kz8/edit?usp=sharing), > so we can align the new spec file as we build it. > > I can lay the groundwork by doing the autotools/Makefiles and > 'build-artifacts' splitting. Gal Zaidman agreed on starting to work on > the new spec file. Milan mentioned, that he had something like the > quick-and-dirty patch, maybe he can share it with us. > > Questions, comments are welcome. > > Regards, Marcin > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org > Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/ > oVirt Code of Conduct: > https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ > List Archives: > https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/MFZHLJA46QM7PVBDB3GRPSQJOI4OZTSX/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@ovirt.org Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/ oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/A4OXEB43XJOGNJG5VRAXWVCIV2PK4K2U/
