On 19/04/12 16:53, Juan Hernandez wrote: > On 04/19/2012 03:22 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: >> On 19/04/12 13:26, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>> On 04/19/2012 12:00 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote: >>>> On 18/04/12 14:04, Juan Hernandez wrote: >>>>> On 04/18/2012 09:51 AM, Ofer Schreiber wrote: >>>>>> Ever wondered why the version of oVirt's first release is 3.0.0_0001? >>>>>> The answer is simple - We use ovirt-engine jar's version as our "main" >>>>>> release version. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I think the current versioning scheme is ugly. Actually, I >>>>>> can't name even one open-source project using "_" in it's version. >>>>>> >>>>>> What can we do about it? We have couple of options: >>>>>> 1. Leave the engine alone, and use a separate versioning scheme (e.g - >>>>>> use just 3.1.0 as the main version for next release) >>>>>> 2. Remove "_" from engine jars >>>>>> 3. Do nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well as the reasons to use such an >>>>>> unusual versioning scheme. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Ofer Schreiber >>>>>> oVirt Release Manager >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Arch mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch >>>>> >>>>> From my point of view using the 0001 suffix in the names of the jar >>>>> files is not a big problem, but I agree that using it in the release >>>>> number is ugly, and it produces issues/discussions during packaging. I >>>>> vote for option #1: use 3.1.0 for the next main version. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The original versioning scheme was due to a bug in maven2. >>>> >>>> Juan, I've read some of the Java packaging concepts, but didn't see >>>> (or missed) thoughts about modular versioning (ie- artifacts). >>>> >>>> Here are the things to consider here; >>>> >>>> - Current RPM's are using the version declared in the POM files. >>>> Should this concept remain? >>>> * I think it should remain, as other packaging systems should >>>> be able to use it as well and end-up is the similar project version. >>> >>> I can talk from the Fedora point of view only, as that is what I know a bit. >>> >>> In Fedora there can be only one version of a given jar file installed in >>> the system, so there is no point in adding a version number to the name >>> of that jar file: the version number is already in the package >>> containing that jar file. In fact if the build generates jar files with >>> version numbers in the name the RPM should remove those jar files. That >>> is why I say that having any kind of numbers in the names of the jars is >>> not important: we have to remove them anyway. >>> >>> Packaging guidelines (see [1]) recommend to avoid version numbers in the >>> jar files, and I think that makes sense. >>> >> This would be the easy solution. > > Again talking only about Fedora: > > Having just one version of every jar is not simple at all, in fact it > requires a lot of work to make sure that the selected versions work > properly together. > See below, we actually share the same view...
>> What happens when you have more than a single Java app, and both >> using different versions of the same jar file? This means that one >> of the app's will need to bring it along and use it locally, rather >> than system-level usage. > > What happens is that both applications have to be patched so that they > work correctly with the same version of that jar file. If possible the > patches are pushed upstream, if not they applied as part of the package. > Embedding another version of that jar file in one of the applications is > not allowed, in fact that is something that packagers have to undo quite > often. > See below... converging into the latest jar is what I figured that will happen. Still, as I see it such constraints are not really needed. >> I'm guessing if we assume such a constraint the solution will be >> to force all app's to use latest jar version, which isn't trivial. > > I agree completely, it is not trivial at all, that is where packagers > expend most of their time. > >> So some distro's will allow of concept of slotted installation. >> This means I currently /have/ 2 working versions of postgres in >> my laptop (using Gentoo)- >> >> equery l postgresql-server >> * Searching for postgresql-server ... >> [IP-] [ ] dev-db/postgresql-server-8.4.11:8.4 >> [IP-] [ ] dev-db/postgresql-server-9.1.3:9.1 >> >> The same works on my laptop for Maven, Java, Python and many others. >> If you think about it, Fedora supports slotted installation for >> kernels, and then added alternatives to do that with other packages >> as well (mta, Java..). So there's a need and a way to handle several >> versions of the same library (regardless of the language), and >> we should be careful when taking such assumptions. At least try >> to be as flexible as possible, to allow others to join in. > > In Fedora that is allowed only for major versions: java-1.7.0 and > java-1.6.0, maven 2 and maven 3, so on, but not usually for minor > versions (there are exceptions). > It's a good start. >> So learning from Fedora I'd say- let the RPM install in a versioned >> folder (ie- /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.5.0-gcj/..), and leave the jar >> files without versions for now. In the future we may need to change it >> as some disrto's may use sym links to indicate the latest jar. >> In such a case the RPM will stripdown the version from the artifact. > > What we are currently doing with the Fedora ovirt-engine package is that > jar files are installed to /usr/share/java/ovirt-engine, with names like > bll.jar, common.jar, compat.jar, etc. The RPM takes care of stripping > the version numbers generated by the upstream build. This doesn't > preclude other distros from doing it in a different way, using version > numbers or symlinks. > Why not /usr/share/java/ovirt-engine-3/ ? I do not see someone using engine3 and engine4 on the same machine, but he may need to have engine-config v3 to handle previous instance and engine-config v4 to handle current instance, so we could have a good infra if we keep the major version. -- /d "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind" --Bob Dylan, Blowin' in the Wind (1963) _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
