Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
On 03/14/2013 04:55 PM, Jiri Belka wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:48 +0002 Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com wrote: Hi Jiri On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka jbe...@redhat.com wrote: I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during installation (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is upgrade working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup after clean install because I was thinking I know what files are important and was restoring them from a tarball. I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is stupid. If we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, restore from backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time with rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with rhevm-setup? My previous (wrong) procedure to restore old version was: rhevm-cleanup, yum remove rhevm\*, rm -rf $dirs, yum install rhevm\*, tar xvzpf /backup.tgz, ./restore.sh for DB... which was not fully correct as I haven't known /etc/yum/plugin.d/versionlock.list is touched by rhevm-setup as well and thus yum was working very strange during next normal upgrade. ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users moran/ofer - i remember some discussions on moving from version lock to a yum plugin. i.e., yum will not update the packages if not getting some parameter from engine-upgrade (but will show updates exist), but they will behave normally other than that? ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:12:25 +0002 Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All As we are working on the configuration utilities (engine-setup, engine-upgrade and engine-cleanup), we would like to get as much community involvement as possible. As such, we'd like to hear the wishes of the community in regards with those tools. 1. do not think yum is everywhere, make package upgrade extensible by some subclasses (apt-get, pkg_add...) 2. usernames are not same everywhere postgres is not everywhere 3. do not make absolute symlinks, some packaging tools scream 4. do not use #!/bin/bash but #!/bin/sh, in 99,9% people are not using anything special from bash anyway jbelka ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
- Original Message - From: Jiri Belka jbe...@redhat.com To: Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com Cc: engine-de...@ovirt.org, Users@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:52:31 PM Subject: Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:12:25 +0002 Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All As we are working on the configuration utilities (engine-setup, engine-upgrade and engine-cleanup), we would like to get as much community involvement as possible. As such, we'd like to hear the wishes of the community in regards with those tools. 1. do not think yum is everywhere, make package upgrade extensible by some subclasses (apt-get, pkg_add...) Right. 2. usernames are not same everywhere postgres is not everywhere Right. 3. do not make absolute symlinks, some packaging tools scream I replied to this one, I don't fully agree, relative symlinks have their own issues, and hard to convert absolute to relative when 3rd party components are involved. 4. do not use #!/bin/bash but #!/bin/sh, in 99,9% people are not using anything special from bash anyway This is out of scope, we will depend on bash for now... too much legacy. We can attend to that in future. I can promise that no new code will be written in bash. Thanks! jbelka ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
- Original Message - From: Jiri Belka jbe...@redhat.com To: Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com Cc: engine-de...@ovirt.org, Users@ovirt.org Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:52:31 PM Subject: Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:12:25 +0002 Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All As we are working on the configuration utilities (engine-setup, engine-upgrade and engine-cleanup), we would like to get as much community involvement as possible. As such, we'd like to hear the wishes of the community in regards with those tools. 1. do not think yum is everywhere, make package upgrade extensible by some subclasses (apt-get, pkg_add...) Right. 2. usernames are not same everywhere postgres is not everywhere Right. 3. do not make absolute symlinks, some packaging tools scream I replied to this one, I don't fully agree, relative symlinks have their own issues, and hard to convert absolute to relative when 3rd party components are involved. 4. do not use #!/bin/bash but #!/bin/sh, in 99,9% people are not using anything special from bash anyway This is out of scope, we will depend on bash for now... too much legacy. We can attend to that in future. I can promise that no new code will be written in bash. Thanks! jbelka ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users Wiki updated. Thanks! ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during installation (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is upgrade working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup after clean install because I was thinking I know what files are important and was restoring them from a tarball. I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is stupid. If we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, restore from backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time with rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) jbelka ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
Hi Jiri On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka jbe...@redhat.com wrote: I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during installation (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is upgrade working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup after clean install because I was thinking I know what files are important and was restoring them from a tarball. I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is stupid. If we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, restore from backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time with rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with rhevm-setup? jbelka ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Re: [Users] Features requests for the setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44:48 +0002 Alex Lourie alou...@redhat.com wrote: Hi Jiri On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Jiri Belka jbe...@redhat.com wrote: I'll talk about RHEVM but it's probably related to oVirt too. As rhevm installs all deps, I'm curious why versionlock.list is populated after rhevm-setup and _not_dirrectly during installation (maybe because you would need to hardcode versions into rhevm package?). It took me tens of minutes to figure out why is upgrade working differently now, just because I did _NOT_ do rhevm-setup after clean install because I was thinking I know what files are important and was restoring them from a tarball. I think running rhevm-setup if you just want to restore is stupid. If we would know 100% which files are involved, just install, restore from backup, restore DB should be sufficient, without loosing time with rhevm-setup which just writes there and here... :) I don't really follow you here. What are you restoring with rhevm-setup? My previous (wrong) procedure to restore old version was: rhevm-cleanup, yum remove rhevm\*, rm -rf $dirs, yum install rhevm\*, tar xvzpf /backup.tgz, ./restore.sh for DB... which was not fully correct as I haven't known /etc/yum/plugin.d/versionlock.list is touched by rhevm-setup as well and thus yum was working very strange during next normal upgrade. ___ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
