----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" danken@redhat.com To: "Sandro Bonazzola" sbonazzo@redhat.com, dcaro@redhat.com Cc: "vdsm-devel" vdsm-devel@fedorahosted.org, "oVirt Mailing List" users@ovirt.org 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 http://gerrit.ovirt.org/19545
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: http://jenkins.ovirt.org/job/vdsm_3.3_install_rpm_sanity_gerrit/label=fedora...
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 http://www.ovirt.org/Vdsm_Developers#Installing_required_packages 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 not available 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.
http://jenkins.ovirt.org/view/Packaging/job/vdsm_create_rpms/
- 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 exactly).
Regards, Dan. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users