has been available for a few weeks:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8447
on one hand F-8 is near its End Of Life and F8 has been used by people who needed Xen support. On the other hand libvirt in F-8 is a bit ancient.
I'm unclear if people really want the update before the EOL, there is a report that this worked fine for Xen users but there is always a risk of pushing an update like this so late in the cycle.
Opinion welcome, by default I don't plan to push the update to stable but if people want this, either grab it from testing of just ask here, I don't have any strong opinion, just keeping the status-quo by default.
Daniel
+1 for pushing it. +1 for a updated version of virt-manager in fc8 too.
On 10/29/2008 11:39 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
has been available for a few weeks:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-8447
on one hand F-8 is near its End Of Life and F8 has been used by people who needed Xen support. On the other hand libvirt in F-8 is a bit ancient.
I'm unclear if people really want the update before the EOL, there is a report that this worked fine for Xen users but there is always a risk of pushing an update like this so late in the cycle.
Opinion welcome, by default I don't plan to push the update to stable but if people want this, either grab it from testing of just ask here, I don't have any strong opinion, just keeping the status-quo by default.
Daniel
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
+1 for pushing it. +1 for a updated version of virt-manager in fc8 too.
If libvirt 0.4.6 is pushed for F8, I'll push the latest virt-manager + virtinst as well.
I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who don't care.
Daniel
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:41:40PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
+1 for pushing it. +1 for a updated version of virt-manager in fc8 too.
If libvirt 0.4.6 is pushed for F8, I'll push the latest virt-manager + virtinst as well.
I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who don't care.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Daniel
Daniel Veillard a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:41:40PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who don't care.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Daniel
Hello,
This is a very interesting point...
Fedora 8 is for now the latest Fedora distribution with a Xen dom0 : * Fedora 9 doesn't have a dom0 according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops#Release_Notes * the next Fedora with a Xen dom0 will be Fedora 10, according to http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f9/en_US/sn-Virtualization.html (20.1 Kernel Integration Improvements : "Xen Dom0 support will be added back in Fedora 10")
I am curious about :
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Does the fact of pushing Fedora 8 packages into Testing instead of Stable allows future updates of theses packages to be available to Fedora 8 users even after its end of life ?
P.S. : is there any place to follow the development of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops ?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:37:41PM +0100, Maxim Doucet wrote:
Daniel Veillard a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:41:40PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who don't care.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Fedora 8 is for now the latest Fedora distribution with a Xen dom0 :
- Fedora 9 doesn't have a dom0 according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops#Release_Notes
- the next Fedora with a Xen dom0 will be Fedora 10, according to
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f9/en_US/sn-Virtualization.html (20.1 Kernel Integration Improvements : "Xen Dom0 support will be added back in Fedora 10")
If you want a long term usable Xen host then for now CentOS or RHEL are the best options. Fedora will not get Xen host supoport again until its merged upstream, which is 2.6.28 best case, possibly longer.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Does the fact of pushing Fedora 8 packages into Testing instead of Stable allows future updates of theses packages to be available to Fedora 8 users even after its end of life ?
No, once its end of life it is removed from the update system.
Daniel
Maxim Doucet a écrit :
P.S. : is there any place to follow the development of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops ?
I suppose I've found the answer : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F10_XenPvOps
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 16:37 +0100, Maxim Doucet wrote:
Fedora 8 is for now the latest Fedora distribution with a Xen dom0 :
- Fedora 9 doesn't have a dom0 according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops#Release_Notes
- the next Fedora with a Xen dom0 will be Fedora 10, according to
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f9/en_US/sn-Virtualization.html (20.1 Kernel Integration Improvements : "Xen Dom0 support will be added back in Fedora 10")
The relevant F10 release notes are also in progress here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Virtualization
Dom0 will not be there at release time: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue146#No_Dom0_Support_in_Fedora_10
Some Fedora users lack HVM extensions in hardware and are stuck with Xen and F8 for now. I think putting new releases in F8-test-only seems like a nice conservative compromise.
I was hoping libvirt 0.4.6 would fix the issue of virsh losing track of domUs until xend is restarted, but after installing the test build on my F8 dom0 I found that wasn't the case. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453276
People can post their experiences with a build in Bodhi. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/libvirt
Dale Bewley a écrit :
The relevant F10 release notes are also in progress here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Virtualization
Dom0 will not be there at release time: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue146#No_Dom0_Support_in_Fedora_10
Thanks for those links
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:16:35PM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:41:40PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27:58AM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
+1 for pushing it. +1 for a updated version of virt-manager in fc8 too.
If libvirt 0.4.6 is pushed for F8, I'll push the latest virt-manager + virtinst as well.
I think it is a bad idea to push major new versions of anything to a distro that is about to go end of life. We've only just released these new libvirt, virt-manager & virtinst packages. We *will* cause regressions in functionality in F8, and with it about to go end of life, we'll be unable to push further updates to fix the regressions.
If someone really badly wants new libvirt/virt-manager for F8, then they can easily just take the new RPMs from F9/10 and do a rpmbuild --rebuild on the src. This avoids causing regressions for anyone else on F8 who don't care.
The other solution is to build the package in Testing and not push it to Stable, like I did for libvirt, I think this minimize the risks while avoiding the multiple builds (and hence risk of massive divergence of the versions).
Leaving it in testing forever is a reasonable option, though my preference is to not update at all. Old Fedora releases should just get bug fixes and not major version updates - libvirt's almost OK because its ABI stable and has no UI, but we have caused regressions due to introducing new bugs. virt-manager has undergone major UI changes & redesign, and its really not the kind of thing that should be pushed into stable Fedora releases.
Daniel
-
Cole Robinson -
Dale Bewley -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Daniel Veillard -
itamar -
Maxim Doucet