Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 08:45 -0400 schrieb Barak Azulay: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > > To: "Barak Azulay" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Douglas > > Landgraf" <[email protected]>, "node-devel" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:53:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Barak Azulay" <[email protected]> > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Douglas > > > Landgraf" <[email protected]>, "node-devel" > > > <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:51:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > > > > To: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected], "Douglas Landgraf" <[email protected]>, > > > > "node-devel" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:57:09 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]> > > > > > To: [email protected], "node-devel" <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: "Douglas Landgraf" <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:37:05 PM > > > > > Subject: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node > > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > > > currently [0] - or since the split into base image and layered image - > > > > > the versioning of Node hasn't been really resolved. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to change the versioning of Node with the goal to make it > > > > > directly obvious what oVirt version a Node is targeting. > > > > > > > > > > Before I continue let me clarify that this is primarily about the > > > > > versioning of the Node ISO. > > > > > The versioning of the wrapper-rpm can possibly follow the naming of > > > > > the > > > > > ISO, as long as we make yum happy. > > > > > Also this is not about the ovirt-node (pkg) versioning, only about the > > > > > iso image. > > > > > > > > > > Currently the ISO naming is as follows: > > > > > > > > > > ovirt-node-iso-<node-version>-<number>.<number>.<build-date>.\ > > > > > vdsm<ovirt-target-version>.<dist>.iso > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.0.4-1.0.201401291204.vdsm34.el6.iso) > > > > > > > > > > The main pain point of this is IMO the vdsm34 snippet - because it > > > > > breaks the whol envr and is currently just added after the edit-node > > > > > pass. > > > > > > > > > > I'm proposing the following scheme: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.iso > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-20140328.1.el6.iso) > > > > > > > > > > This should make it obvious to the user what ISO to use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now about the rpm scheme. We can not change this as long as the Engine > > > > > logic has not been updated to use the proposed metadata file: > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081969 (Node) > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081970 > > > > > > > > > > Once these two bugs have been addressed we can also change the rpm > > > > > naming. > > > > > In general I'd like to follow the iso naming, thus: > > > > > > > > > > ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.rpm > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that we should have upstream version for ovirt node as any other > > > > upstream version we have. > > > > > > > > I also do not like dates embed within release as it will make our lives > > > > difficult when we have proper bug tracking system in place. > > > > > > > > I am unsure what 'iso' means... I think it should be removed or > > > > converted > > > > to > > > > subpackage. > > > > > > > > Should we also consider parallel versions of different distributions(?) > > > > (fc19, fc20). > > > > > > Doesn't this miss the entire node purpose ? a user should not care what > > > platform was used to build the node. > > > > If we keep in parallel different distributions per single version of ovirt, > > we should somehow mark it in the binary output. > > > > For example we have experimental fedora-21 image based on > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.2, while release is based on fedora-19. > > The purpose of ovirt-node is to be distribution agnostic (see esx server). > If we have experimental image than it should be marked as such - not that it > is based on f-21. > The developers should know exactly what distro/version it was built from, I > don't think that users care.
Technically the wrapper-rpm is noarch. Because the contained iso is independent of the host-architecture. Besides that I'd reflect the OS in the rpm name. And as my last comment - the classification if an ISO/rpm is stable or not is done by placing the rpm in the correct (stable or beta) repo. - fabian > Barak > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pre-release: > > > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-0.$(sequence).$(branch).$(date).dist.rpm > > > > > > > > Released: > > > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.z-1.dist.rpm > > > > > > > > Please note that the downstream component is eliminated in upstream, > > > > what > > > > important in upstream is the source tarball.... > > > > > > > > ovirt-ndoe-iso-3.4.z.tar.gz > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Alon > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Arch mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ node-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel
