<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/09/13 22:09, Alex Drahon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5244A291.4060105@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/09/13 06:43, Nathanael Noblet
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5241268F.9090601@gnat.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/23/2013 06:37 AM, Alexandre
Drahon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:957053143.244351.1379939853910.JavaMail.root@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color:
#000000">
<div>Hi all,<br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wanted to give an update on the status of Vagrant in
Fedora 20, I just realised it's my first post to the list
so I'll take this opportunity to introduce myself. I'm
Alex, I work at Red Hat as a Solution Architect (ie.
nothing engineering related), I wrote the vagrant-kvm
plugin on my spare time to make it work on my Fedora
laptop, though there's now a (much more qualified) second
maintainer who is also providing support for Ubuntu
through a PPA. Matthew asked me if I wanted to work on
packaging Vagrant and the KVM plugin for Fedora 20, and I
foolishly accepted ;)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's quite exhilarating having the opportunity to
contribute to Fedora, and at the same time I feel totally
lost. I don't mean this as a criticism, it's just this
"first week at school" feeling, it will take me some time
to get an idea of how things work. That said, here's the
Vagrant situation:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. I have a vagrant RPM that installs and works as
expected, there's some minimal patching involved which has
to do with the fact that Vagrant expect to be running in
it's own Ruby 1.9.3 environment in /opt<br>
</div>
<div>2. There was also some patching involved to make the
plugin system work, although I haven't tested plugins
extensively (some stuff breaks like rubygems loading path)
and providing common plugins as RPMs looks like the better
way in Fedora.<br>
</div>
<div>3. I had to build my own rubygems-childprocess (current
Fedora package is very old) and rubygems-log4r (not
provided in Fedora) RPMs, but I don't know how I should
submit them (package review ticket?). There's a existing
ticket for log4r <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905240">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905240</a>,
I added it as a dependency to the Vagrant ticket.<br>
</div>
<div>4. I've packaged vagrant-kvm as a RPM and it installs,
but I'm running into serious issues with Policykit. I
don't think I'll be able to solve that without help, I'm
not even sure what's the right way to do it.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, as a summary:<br>
</div>
<div> - yum install vagrant should work, at which point you
need to install VirtualBox and it will run as expected<br>
</div>
<div> - vagrant-kvm installs but I don't know how to add the
right polkit rules (I need help)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looks pretty good, right?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It does... Since some of the work needed to get this working
requires packages that aren't in fedora already are you able to
provide a link to a bunch of src.rpms of everything needed. I'd
like to test and wanted to help with this feature awhile back
but got sidetracked... However I don't have F20 running on
anything so would likely use mock to compile for F18 and see if
I can help resolve/test/do something like that.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I posted the current source packages here <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://srpms.adrahon.org/">http://srpms.adrahon.org/</a> <br>
<br>
Vagrant should work with VirtualBox (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/4.2.18/VirtualBox-4.2-4.2.18_88780_fedora18-1.x86_64.rpm">http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/4.2.18/VirtualBox-4.2-4.2.18_88780_fedora18-1.x86_64.rpm</a>
).<br>
<br>
vagrant-kvm still has issues, not sure it's in a testable state
yet.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
After trying several solutions, I think I have found the right
compromise and finally have working packages (with a some caveats).
Again the source packages are at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://srpms.adrahon.org/">http://srpms.adrahon.org/</a>
:<br>
- vagrant looks for plugins both in the user's ~/.vagrant.d
directory and /usr/share/gems for system-wide plugins (like
vagrant-kvm)<br>
- my patched vagrant version looks in /etc/vagrant for the
system-wide plugin registry<br>
- I added commands to vagrant plugin to manage registration of
system-wide plugins (installed with yum)<br>
- rpm-packaged plugins register/unregister themselves at
installation/uninstallation<br>
<br>
This means that Vagrant's behaviour hasn't changed and we can still
package plugins as RPMs.<br>
<br>
How to test:<br>
- you need to install rubygem-log4r, then vagrant, then
rubygem-vagrant-kvm<br>
- "vagrant init fedora19" (name of your box) then edit the
Vagrantfile (you need a private network with a 192.168.192.0
address)<br>
- "vagrant up --provider=kvm" should work<br>
<br>
Caveats:<br>
1. polkit integration is a problem, if you don't have an agent you
won't get the right to connect to the libvirt socket<br>
2. a custom polkit rule works, maybe one should be included (as an
example)<br>
3. firewalld blocks nfs connections from the guest to the host, so
directory sharing will fail. I suppose I need a custom rule, or at
least give instructions to the user on how to do it, but I don't
know how it works.<br>
<br>
1. Isn't a big problem in most cases because you'll have a desktop
environment and a polkit agent, I don't know how the console polkit
agent works.<br>
2. should be provided in the readme file?<br>
3. this is the main issue now, I need some help, I'm sure it's not
to complex but I don't know if an application package should touch
the user's firewalld config.<br>
<br>
Hope some of you can test it.<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
</body>
</html>