On 7/8/22 22:07, Gregory Rose wrote: > > > On 7/8/2022 12:00 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 7/8/22 17:37, Ben Pfaff wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:53 AM David Marchand <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:21 PM Gregory Rose <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > xenserver/openvswitch-xen.spec.in <http://openvswitch-xen.spec.in> >>> > >>> > This is a bit of an issue. Does anyone even use xenserver anymore? >>> > All of the documentation and build instructions are really old and >>> > I wonder of they work anymore. I have no xenserver build >>> environment >>> > to test any changes. >>> >>> Same for me. >>> >>> Ben, Ilya, do you know if this xenserver packaging still has users? >>> The last comment about it was in 2017. >>> fefb757ce408 ("debian, xenserver: Update logrotate config to match >>> RHEL.") >>> >>> Should we keep on updating it? or can we simply drop support for >>> xenserver packaging? >>> >>> I'd be inclined to drop it. I have heard so little about xenserver (or XCP, >>> which >>> I think is its successor) over the last few years. It makes me a bit sad, >>> since >>> that's where Open vSwitch started out (in a few cases I literally had to >>> disassemble bits of its binaries to understand what was going on), but the >>> world moves on. >> >> It seems like there is a newer open-source XCP-ng project that is >> more or less active. There is also proprietary Citrix Hypervisor, >> of course. Both seems to have OVS as a default networking solution >> and both seems to use some version of OVS 2.5.3. Here is a repo >> for XCP-ng one: >> https://github.com/xcp-ng-rpms/openvswitch >> >> They are not using our spec file though. And have some custom >> patches on top. Not sure about Citrix Hypervisor, but I found some >> more or less recent security hotfixes referencing openvswitch package >> like this one: >> >> https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX306423/hotfix-xs82e022-for-citrix-hypervisor-82 >> >> So, yes, someone is still using it, but they are using about 5 year >> old version at this point and they are not using upstream spec file. >> >> Maybe the removal is a right thing to do. We can re-introduce the >> scripts and spec files later if someone from aforementioned >> projects will want to maintain them. For now, I agree that xenserver >> is not a priority, as all the xenserver users seems to use boxed >> versions of openvswitch provided by XCP-ng or Citrix anyway. These >> projects can maintain their own variants if needed. The code will >> remain on 2.17 branch for a next few years, if some of these projects >> will decide to upgrade. >> >> Thoughts? > > I think removing the xenserver support is the right thing to do for now, > especially given the information just shared. > > I'll go ahead and get that done for V4 of the series and add your > suggested change to continue to support AFXDP ci github workflows.
Ack. Thanks! _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
