Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
Robert Nelson wrote:
Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
Hi Robert,
I'm trying to play with vzpkg2. Here are some random problems I
found so far.
1. I am trying to install the beast on Fedora 7 x86_64 system. This
is what I see:
/usr/share/vzpkg2/cache-os: line 164:
/usr/lib/vzctl/scripts/vps-create: No such file or directory
The thing is vps-create is located in /usr/lib64/vzctl/scrpts on an
x64 box (vzctl-lib-3.0.22-1.x86_64.rpm). This was never a problem
because vzpkg didn't work on x86_64. Now this needs to be fixed, I
guess the workaround is to check lib64 first and use it if
available. Patch (0001-*) is attached.
I am also testing on an x86_64 machine and vzctl/scripts is still
installed in /usr/lib. This must be a change in the never released
version of vzctl. I don't think this change is correct. /usr/lib
should be for 32 bit and "Architecture-Independent" files, /usr/lib64
is for 64 bit only "Architecture Dependent" files.
I checked with vzctl-3.0.20 and 3.0.22 -- official built RPMs from
download.openvz.org.
Even if it is incorrect we can fix it in future version but the
problem is people are using current versions and will use it for some
time.
Which vzctl do you have, where you got it from? Maybe Debian build?
I'm using version 3.0.22 and I test on both Debian and CentOS. By
default CentOS installs both the 32 and 64 bit versions. On Debian I'm
using the vzctl from http://download.openvz.org/debian-syst and it
doesn't use /usr/lib64.
Anyways, it is a simple enough to test for /usr/lib64/vzctl/scripts first.
2. In git commit 2fdcbfc56b4d823ff085e80ec79828f67b5de5a9 you have
added %{dist} to the value of Release: field of vzpkg.spec. This is
a good thing, since it makes .spec file to be more
Fedora-packaging-guidelines compatible. Then in commit
0fe151bd07301c78c85a319d683c3e7fd9117f38 you are removing it.
The proper way is to put %{?dist} so if it's not set then it will
expand to empty string. Patch (0002-*) is attached.
I know about the %(?dist), in fact I use it in the add-ons spec
files. However vzpkg is not distribution specific and there is no
reason to build separate binary rpms for each distribution and each
release of the distribution.
Still all the packages in Fedora have that suffix. I do not have time
at the moment to dig into Fedora Packaging Guidelines but AFAIK it is
required. It does no harm since it is expanded to nothing if %dist is
unset (which happened on my F9 box).
UPDATE: here it is --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag. Basically, setting
this makes it easier to become a part of Fedora.
Purpose of the Dist Tag
There are several uses for a |%{dist}| tag. The original purpose was so
that a single spec file could be used for multiple distribution
releases. In doing this, there are cases in which BuildRequires: and
Requires: will need to be different for different distribution releases.
Hence, |%{dist}| does double duty:
* it differentiates multiple packages which would otherwise have the
same |%{name}-%{version}-%{release}|, but very different
dependencies.
* it allows for a conditional check in the spec to deal with the
differing dependencies.
Do I Have To Use the Dist Tag?
No. It is documented and standardized so that maintainers who wish to
use it can do so, but it is not mandatory.
Above is the actual text from the Guidelines. Since vzpkg doesn't have
any dependencies it isn't version or distribution specific. So it isn't
necessary, the guidelines also specify that it is optional. If it is
specified then you would need to generate separate RPMs for every
distribution and every version of those distributions. This isn't a
problem if it is being built as part of a distribution but it is when
you are building separate from a distribution.
3. There are a few problems with setting VZPKG_CACHE_HOST in
/etc/vz/vz.conf
(a) From my POV, vzpkg should work (maybe suboptimal and
inefficient, but it should) without any additional settings. Now
it's not so -- you have to specify VZPKG_CACHE_HOST manually. It
should be optional.
With a bit of work I can generate default values in an install
script. But it is really hard to figure out a default static IP
address needed to do an template update for Debian.
Is there some list of mirrors available? I mean, if I run say
debootstrap I do not have to configure anything.
I'm not sure how that is relevant to the issue being discussed. The
issue I'm talking about is an IP address for the container. This is
needed so that the container can access the network to run "apt-get
upgrade" to update the template with latest versions of the installed
packages.
As far as the question about debootstrap, there is a default mirror
built into the debootstrap script. This works for Debian, for Ubuntu
the default mirror is in the various scripts in
/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts on Debian or /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts
on Fedora.
(b) vz.conf man page belongs to vzctl, while this parameter belongs
to vzpkg. It's a bit unnatural.
I didn't find it unnatural since the vzctl package is really just the
user-mode component of OpenVZ. The naming of the file vz.conf rather
than vzctl.conf reinforces that.
One thing I could do is create a vzpkg.conf in /etc/vz. It could
have the global defaults, then have the template version of
vzpkg.conf override it per distribution or distribution/release.
(c) Protocol (http://) is explicitly prepended to a value of
VZPKG_CACHE_HOST. This makes it impossible to use anything other
than http:// (i.e. ftp://, file://, whatever).
This is a simple change in the vzpkg.conf files.
(d) This is a global parameter, which means it's not possible to
have a per-distro cache/repo in different places. This is the case
for me -- there are repo mirrors of pretty much every distro in my
LAN, but they are not on the same server.
See my response to point (b)
Not really sure what do to about that -- just started to looking
and... here comes the weekend :)
This is it so far; will continue next week.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
