[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Ovirt-devel] RFC w/o PATCH: Renaming oVirt RPMs





Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:08:15AM -0400, Perry N. Myers wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Alan Pevec wrote:
I propose to rename oVirt package names as follows:

ovirt-host-image -> ovirt-node-image
ovirt-managed-node -> ovirt-node
ovirt-wui -> ovirt-server (to be split later into one subpkg per daemon)

and directory renames:

ovirt-managed-node -> node/
ovirt-host-creator -> node/image
wui -> server
wui-appliance -> server/appliance

Does anyone have an issue with the proposal?
It's already too late for such restructuring, but we do it now or never...
IMHO, rather than just rename the directories in GIT you should create
separate repos for each of those 4 top level directories. There's no
good reason to keep those pieces in the same repo. They're worked on
by different people and we should enforce strong separation in the code
repo, to ensure a stable versioned interfaces to be developed for any
interaction between independant pieces. Otherwise things just get sloppy
and you get into a mess like Xen, where every single piece of the entire
infrastructure has to come from an exact matching release otherwise the
ABIs are incompatible.
Dan,

I'm not opposed to having separate repos for:

ovirt-node
ovirt-server-suite
ovirt-node-image
ovirt-appliance

Though it does change our build environment drastically since the notion of 'build-all' completely breaks. Any suggestions for how we should incorporate build-all into this new layout?

Don't have a build all. A developer working on the WUI has no need to build
the managed node, and vica-verca. They can use pre-built RPMs of the bits
they are not working on. Autobuild is specifically designed to be able to
do end-to-end builds of a set of dependant packages, and report on them
individually.

Ok, right now everyone that works on oVirt uses build-all extensively... and most of those folks don't have access to an autobuild server to automate the process for them. So we need some replacement for build-all for people in the community who want to build from scratch instead of using prebuilt appliance.

So just saying 'don't have build-all, use autobuild instead' is not really a valid option unless we replace it with something equally easy to use...

Perry


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]