On 14/02/2025 7:15 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.02.2025 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 13.02.2025 01:51, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 12/02/2025 9:52 pm, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> During the installation of Xen on an ARM server machine from the source >>>>>> code, >>>>>> I found that the wrong release candidate (rc) is being used: >>>>>> $ make install >>>>>> install -m0644 -p xen //boot/xen-4.20-rc >>>>>> install: cannot remove ‘//boot/xen-4.20-rc’: Permission denied >>>>>> make[1]: *** [Makefile:507: _install] Error 1 >>>>>> My expectation is that it should be xen-4.20-rc4. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure if this behavior is intentional or if users are expected to >>>>>> set >>>>>> the XEN_VENDORVERSION variable manually to ensure the correct release >>>>>> candidate number. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion, we should set the proper release candidate number after >>>>>> "xen-4.20-rc" automatically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on how to resolve this >>>>>> issue? >>>>> Hi Oleksii, >>>>> >>>>> I did a quick test and I see exactly the same on x86 as well. This patch >>>>> fixes it, but then it would need someone to update the RC number in >>>>> xen/Makefile every time a new RC is made. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> xen: add RC version number to xen filename >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> >>>> This is a direct consequence of the request to keep XEN_EXTRAVERSION at >>>> "-rc" throughout the release cycle. >>>> >>>> I'm having to manually edit that simply to create the tarballs >>>> correctly, which in turn means that the tarball isn't a byte-for-byte >>>> identical `git archive` of the tag it purports to be. >>> Just for my understanding - may I ask why this editing is necessary? >>> Other release technicians never mentioned the (indeed undesirable) >>> need to do so. >> This is not an answer to Jan's question, more me highlighting >> priorities. >> >> While having the appropriate RC version in the Xen name during the RC >> phase of the release process would be nice, I do not believe it is >> mandatory. We do need it in the official release tarballs though.
Release tarballs are fine, because they are always tagged on a commit editing the micro version in XEN_EXTRAVERSION. It's only RC tarballs that go wrong. >> >> So the most important consideration for me is making the release >> technician's job easier and less error-prone. Therefore, I believe we >> should follow Andrew and Julien's recommendation on this. >> >> Andrew, just to be clear, are you recommending to go with a patch >> similar to the one I posted, and then update the XEN_VENDORVERSION >> with a new commit every time there is a new RC? Or are you suggesting >> something else? I wasn't certain reading your reply. > Just one point here: I don't think we ought to be playing with > XEN_VENDORVERSION. If we switch, we ought to switch back to how it > was long ago - the RC number being part of XEN_EXTRAVERSION. > XEN_VENDORVERSION really should be left to vendors. Hopefully the other email is clear and covers everything, but tl;dr, I suggest we do edit XEN_EXTRAVERSION (and not XEN_VENDORVERSION) for each RC tarball. ~Andrew
