----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fabian Deutsch" <[email protected]> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "node-devel" <[email protected]>, "Douglas Landgraf" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 10:45:15 AM > Subject: Re: [node-devel] Versioning of oVirt Node > > Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 04:57 -0400 schrieb Alon Bar-Lev: > > > > ----- 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. > > Yeah, after sleeping a bit about this, I also believe that we can be > more "conservative" when it comes to the rpm naming. > > That means I could imagine going with the plain NVR … > > > 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. > > … including without the build date, and only a propper (increasing) > release verison. > > > I am unsure what 'iso' means... I think it should be removed or converted > > to subpackage. > > The iso means that this package carries the ISO which can be deploayed > by Engine. > > ovirt-node - Package with the recipe/kickstart and actual codebase > ovirt-node-iso - Wrapper for the ISO containing ovirt-node > > I do not favor of making ovirt-node-iso a subpackage of ovirt-node. > Because ovirt-node is actually contained in ovirt-node-iso.
ok, although the fact that it carries iso is not significant... as the binary (built) representation of node is iso... but not that important :) > > > Should we also consider parallel versions of different distributions(?) > > (fc19, fc20). > > In general I favor of having only one stable Node per distribution. Thus > one for Fedora, and one for CentOS. > > Besides that, we could investigate how yum is handling different dist > tags on packages in the same repo. > I.e.: > node-3.0-0.fc19.rpm > node-3.0-0.el6.rpm > In the same repo. no... it should be: node-fc19-3.0-0.fc19.rpm node-centos-3.0-0.fc19.rpm node-fc19-3.0-0.el6.rpm node-centos-3.0-0.el6.rpm As there is no reason why I would not like centos hosts for my fedora engine :) And there is no reason why we should not allow keeping these available side-by-side. > If the el6 variant is installed on the Engine side, does yum > automatically update to the 3.1 el6 variant when it comes out? Or does > yum ignore the different dist-tags? > > > Pre-release: > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.0-0.$(sequence).$(branch).$(date).dist.rpm > > Could you please give an example for this. You can see lots of examples at other projects[1] [1] http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-snapshot/rpm/fc19/noarch/ > And - as noted above - I could live with dropping the date for the > wrapper-rpms - tho it is still handy to have them. Why is it handy, what is it serve? > > > Released: > > ovirt-node-iso-3.4.z-1.dist.rpm > > would you replase z in that string above? Each stable release/fix release you issue z is incremented async of any other package. > > > Please note that the downstream component is eliminated in upstream, > > Could you please exaplain this a bit more. You wrote: > > > ovirt-node-iso-<ovirt-target-version>-<build-date>.<number>.<dist>.iso This means that you have no upstream version for your own use... ovirt-target-version is of ovirt, but what is the version of the node? I hope I answered your question. > > > what important in upstream is the source tarball.... > > ovirt-ndoe-iso-3.4.z.tar.gz > > Thanks for that lengthy input! > > - fabian > _______________________________________________ node-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/node-devel
