Checking the docs per Will's request earlier in this thread: I see that the documented systemvm template URL for VMware (vSphere) changed from 4.0.0 to 4.0.1, but none of the others have been updated. The VMware template actually went backwards from a newer to an older version. I don't think I did that, and I'm not sure why it happened. Nor am I sure which one (if either) is appropriate for 4.1.
4.0.0 docs had: http://download.cloud.com/templates/burbank/burbank-systemvm-08012012.ova 4.0.1 docs had: http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova 4.1 doc directory currently has: http://download.cloud.com/templates/acton/acton-systemvm-02062012.ova Can Sheng, Kelven, or anyone else shed light on this? Or is this question now moot, given the discussion on this thread? Jessica T. On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone, > I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1 > release, to avoid confusion. > > Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template > for one release would be tricky I think. > > And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained > upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside > that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested > enough for default template. > > VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade > the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't > affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again, > Kelven should able to help with it. > > --Sheng > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > >> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6 > >> feature is required in which case: > >> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing > >> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) > >> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is created) > to > >> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> > > > > I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be > > considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants > > to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work > > to get the correct system VM. > > > > As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. > > > > Other thoughts? > > > >> > >> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >> >> When I first report the bug > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 > >> >> > >> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. > >> >> > >> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of > >> >>that. > >> > > >> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the > >> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I > >> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to > >> >4.2 > >> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in > >> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an > >> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are: > >> > > >> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 > >> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the > >> >appliance/template really works [2] > >> > > >> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would > >> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I > >> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1 > >> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at > >> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used > >> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could > >> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the > >> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template. > >> > > >> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? > >> > > >> >Regards. > >> > > >> > > >> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 > >> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 > >> > > >> >> > >> >> --Sheng > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers > >> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama > wrote: > >> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature > >> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system > VM > >> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch > >> >>>> > http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/las > >> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to > >> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question. > >> >>> > >> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now are > the > >> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix > pre-ASF). > >> > >> >
