----- Original Message ----- > From: "Itamar Heim" <ih...@redhat.com> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com> > Cc: engine-de...@ovirt.org, Users@ovirt.org, "Jiri Belka" <jbe...@redhat.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:48:51 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [Users] Features requests for the > setup/configuration utilities - feedback requested > > On 03/15/2013 08:07 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Itamar Heim" <ih...@redhat.com> > >> To: "Jiri Belka" <jbe...@redhat.com> > >> Cc: engine-de...@ovirt.org, Users@ovirt.org > >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:27:32 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [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? > > > > We cannot mention yum specific features in setup context any > > more... this is part of the mission. > > > > We should reconsider the locking of version - no product uses this. > > > > After upgrade of packages, product should either know not to start > > or upgrade the database when restarted, or better know to work > > with older schema. > > > > The version lock should be removed as soon as possible. > > > > Alon > > > > I think we can remove the version lock (after relevant > preparations/changes)
Great! > I still think a yum plugin to not yum update rpms which are part of > the > engine without a special script/yum paramter invoking them) is > worthwhile, since i don't like the concept of someone running yum > update, only to find out the upgrade had an issue a week later when > restarting the service. If we do not want to stop engine service on rpm installation, we can have some kind of notification in engine that the software was updated and a restart is required. Alon _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users