----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> > To: "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 9:26:38 AM > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Using yum in Node > > On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 09:06 -0400, Andrew Cathrow wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> > > > To: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:56:27 AM > > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Using yum in Node > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 09:50 +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > yum landed in node quite recently - not in the official build, > > > > but > > > > in > > > > gerrit [0]. > > > > It's somewhat tricky to get it working, I added a small section > > > > to > > > > the > > > > Node troubleshooting wiki page [1] to give other a better > > > > start. > > > > > > Just for clarity, this is being done to support plugins. It will > > > only > > > be supported offline when using the edit-node functionality. > > > > > > > Obviously the reason for this is not for users to have yum > > available for use on the node when it's deployed but it's going to > > cause confusion with users that they have utilities like yum and > > rpm and can't use them, or if they try to things fail in strange > > ways. > > > > If we don't want or support runtime use of rpm and yum then having > > them in the node and available to be called is asking for trouble. > > Having docs that explain why it failed and why they shouldn't be > > doing it isn't enough. > > The plan to mitigate this issue is that the yum binary will be > relocated > to either a non-standard place that isn't in the path (/usr/libexec) > or > renamed to something else non-standard (ovirt-yum or something). > The /usr/bin/yum executable will instead print a message/warning to > the > user that says the running yum in unsupported on a running host. The > offline edit-node process will call the renamed or relocated yum > script > correctly.
Great. > > The only other options we have are to go down a path where we end up > having to handle all the dependency solving ourselves rather than > leverage something that already exists or have people provide fully > functional and already resolved packages for installation. I don't > see > either of those as good options. > > Mike > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > Greetings > > > > fabian > > > > > > > > [0] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#change,4522 > > > > [1] http://ovirt.org/wiki/Node_Troubleshooting#Using_yum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > node-devel mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > node-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > node-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel > > > _______________________________________________ node-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel
