----- Original Message ----- > On 18/04/12 12:42, Juan Hernandez wrote: > > On 04/18/2012 11:17 AM, Livnat Peer wrote: > >> On 17/04/12 16:20, Ofer Schreiber wrote: > >>> As decided earlier, oVirt next release (3.1) is targeted for > >>> Fedora 17. > >>> Since the engine uses JBoss, we have two deployment options: > >>> 1. Continue working with ovirt-engine-jbossas package > >>> PROS: Single rpm. known upgrade method. > >>> CONS: Maintaining un-natural zip based rpm. No official > >>> support. Can't be pushed into Fedora. > >>> > >>> 2. Move to JBoss F17 official packages: > >>> PROS: Fully supported F17 rpms (including bug fixes, security > >>> fixes, etc). "The right thing to do". > >>> CONS: Upgrade from first release (relaying on old jboss) will > >>> be almost impossible, Some open issues (will it work just as > >>> as normal service? or will we need to code a new one?), Might > >>> cause a delay to Feature Freeze. > >>> > >>> Thought? Comments? > >> > >> I think it is too soon to move to the Jboss packaged for Fedora17. > >> It was just packaged and I am not aware of any developer actually > >> working with oVirt on the Jboss packaged for Fedora (except for > >> one). > >> I expect to at least have the developers working with this Jboss > >> for a > >> while before releasing on it. > >> > >> Can anyone provide info on how different is Jboss for Fedora than > >> the > >> current upstream Jboss we use? > > > > The main difference is that the version being packaged for Fedora > > 17 > > contains a subset of the modules: those needed for the web profile > > except Hibernate. In addition the main configuration file is also > > different: standalone-web.xml instead of standalone.xml. Additional > > modules will be added as needed. Eventually all the modules > > available > > upstream will be available in the Fedora packaging, but that will > > take time. > > > > With the currently available packages ovirt-engine 3.0 can run > > correctly > > (only backend and restapi, not the frontend). It needs changes, but > > it > > can run, and most of those changes are not really related to the > > differences in jboss-as, but to the differences in other packages > > like > > quartz, resteasy, jackson, spring, etc. I believe that the same > > applies > > to 3.1. > > Maybe for 3.1 we should change upstream to use the same Jar versions > as > we use in the Fedora deployment. That would take us one step closer > to a > parity version. > > > > > In order for a ovirt developer to use the Fedora packaging it will > > need > > a lot of additional modules and tools, specially for the frontend, > > that > > are not currently available in Fedora 17. If we wait for that then > > we > > should re-target for Fedora 18. > > > > Is that mean that our next release, if we use Jboss packaged in > Fedora, > will not include UI? > > > My opinion is that we should use the Fedora 17 packages for > > deployment, > > independently of what we use for development. It is challenging, > > but I > > believe is "the right thing to do". > > Juan, thank you for the detailed answer. > > I suggest that for the upcoming release we'll do both, have 2 release > flavors, one RPM's like we released for 3.0 (with Jboss included) and > the other one tailored for Fedora.
Having two release flavors for the next version? sounds wrong to me. We will have to code & test two separate environments. this will require us to duplicate spec file, setup code and upgrade. > > > Thanks, Livnat > > _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
