----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
> To: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbona...@redhat.com>, dc...@redhat.com
> Cc: "vdsm-devel" <vdsm-de...@fedorahosted.org>, "oVirt Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:33:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Users] Low quality of el6 vdsm rpms
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:31:04AM +0100, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> > Il 12/11/2013 10:34, Patrick Hurrelmann ha scritto:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > sorry for this rant, but...
> Thanks for ranting. Community testing and ranting are to be cherished.
> We must improve in the points you have raised.
> > >
> > > I now tried several times to test the beta 3.3.1 rpms, but they can't
> > > even be installed in the most times.
> > I'm glad to read you're testing 3.3.1. May I ask you to add yourself to
> > http://www.ovirt.org/Testing/Ovirt_3.3.1_testing ?
> > > One time it required a future
> > > selinux-policy, although the needed selinux fix was delivered in a much
> > > lower version. Now the rpms have broken requirements. It requires
> > > "hostname" instead of "/bin/hostname". This broken requirement is not
> > > included in the vdsm 3.3 branch, so I wonder where it comes from?
> > > Anyway. So I proceeded and tried to build vdsm myself once again.
> > > Currently the build fails with (but worked fine some days ago):
> > >
> > > /usr/bin/pep8 --exclude="config.py,constants.py" --filename
> > > '*.py,*.py.in' \
> > > client lib/cpopen/*.py lib/vdsm/*.py lib/vdsm/*.py.in tests
> > > vds_bootstrap vdsm-tool vdsm/*.py vdsm/*.py.in vdsm/netconf
> > > vdsm/sos/vdsm.py.in vdsm/storage vdsm/vdsm vdsm_api vdsm_hooks vdsm_reg
> > > vdsm/storage/imageRepository/formatConverter.py:280:29: E128
> > > continuation line under-indented for visual indent
> > >
> > >
> > > - How can the quality of the vdsm builds be increased? It is frustrating
> > > to spend time on testing and then the hosts cannot even be installed to
> > > broken vdsm rpms.
> I suspect you are not interested in "excuses" for each of the failures,
> let us look forwards. My conclusions are:
> - Do not require non-yet-existing rpms. If we require a feature that is
> not yet in Fedora/Centos, we must wait. This is already in effect, see
> for example http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/20248/ and
> - There's a Jenkins job to enforce the former requirement of spec
> requirement. David, Sandro, any idea why it is not running these days?
it does run, but we can't enable it since it's still failing:
once that's fixed, the job will be enabled and run per patch.
> - Keep the docs updated. Our Jenkins slaves have pep8-1.4.6, so we
> should update
> accordingly - and more importantly, make that version available.
> Sandro, who built the python-pep8-1.4.6 that sits on the el6 Jenkins
> slave? Could you make it publicly available? (I can volunteer
> http://danken.fedorapeople.org again)
i tend to agree here with patrick on using non released pep8 packages, that are
via rpms, but only via python-pip.
the jenkins slaves were updated via pyhon-pip and not via yum upgrade.
> > > - How are the builds prepared? Is there a Jenkins job that prepares
> > > "stable" rpms in addition to the nightly job? Or is this totally
> > > handcrafted?
no jenkins job for stable builds.
just nightly builds published from this job which build only rpms from master.
> > > - How can it be that the rpm spec differs between the 3.3 branch and
> > > released rpms? What is the source/branch for el6 vdsm rpms? Maybe I'm
> > > just tracking on the wrong source tree...
> Based on your reports, you are tracking the correct tree; but please
> describe which differences do you see (and between what releases
> Users mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list