Thanks for the insight. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo <majop...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Correct, that’s the problem, what Kevin said should be the ideal case, but > distros have > proven to fail satisfying this kind of requirements earlier. > > So at least a warning to the user may be good to have IMHO. > > Miguel Ángel Ajo > > On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:36, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > The problem is probably due to the fact that some operators may run > neutron from git and manage their dependencies in some other way; or > distributions may suck sometimes, so packagers may miss the release note > and fail to upgrade dnsmasq; or distributions may have their specific > concerns on upgrading dnsmasq version, and would just backport the needed > fix to their 'claimed to 2.66' dnsmasq (common story in Red Hat world). > > On 01/08/2015 05:25 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > > If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the > distro, wouldn't it be transparent to the operators? > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've found out that dnsmasq < 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6 clients > when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, and so clients > get 'no addresses available' response). I've requested version bump to 2.67 > in: https://review.openstack.org/145482 > > Good catch, thanks for finding this Ihar! > > > Now, since we've already released Juno with IPv6 DHCP stateful support, > and DHCP agent still has minimal version set to 2.63 there, we have a > dilemma on how to manage it from stable perspective. > > Obviously, we should communicate the revealed version dependency to > deployers via next release notes. > > Should we also backport the minimal version bump to Juno? This will result > in DHCP agent failing to start in case packagers don't bump dnsmasq version > with the next Juno release. If we don't bump the version, we may leave > deployers uninformed about the fact that their IPv6 stateful instances > won't get any IPv6 address assigned. > > An alternative is to add a special check just for Juno that would WARN > administrators instead of failing to start DHCP agent. > > Comments? > > Personally, I think the WARN may be the best route to go. Backporting a > change which bumps the required dnsmasq version seems like it may be harder > for operators to handle. > > Kyle > > > /Ihar > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Kevin Benton > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing > listOpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Kevin Benton
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
