On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:11:52PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:04:30PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > On 24.06.2016 16:06, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 03:59:38PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > >> On 24.06.2016 15:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 03:12:23PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > >>>> Currently, the daemon requires libvirt-admin.so because the > > >>>> functions encoding/decoding RPC messages for admin APIs live > > >>>> there. But this makes it very hard to split admin API into its > > >>>> own separate package: if libvirt-admin.so is going to live in a > > >>>> separate package than the daemon, either both packages must be > > >>>> installed or none. > > >>>> Solve this by statically linking the RPC message handling > > >>>> functions with the daemon. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not sure I see any need for a separate package for libvirt-admin.so > > >>> For libvirt-qemu.so and libvirt-lxc.so we keep them in libvirt-client > > >>> RPM, and I'd expect libvirt-admin.so to be there too really. > > >> > > >> So libvirt-client would contain not only virsh (and other .so files) but > > >> virt-admin binary too? Okay, if that's what we want my patch is useless. > > >> If we, however, want a separate package for libvirt-admin (which is kind > > >> of special compared to libvirt-qemu.so and libvirt-lxc.so), then I guess > > >> we need this patch. > > > > > > Hmm, i guess libvirt-admin is only needed if libvirtd is actually > > > present on the host. So I guess we could argue that virt-admin > > > and libvirt-admin.so should just be a part of libvirt-daemon RPM. > > > > The more I think about it the more I think that our current split into > > RPM packages has some minor flaws. For instance, libvirt-daemon requires > > libvirt-client; just because libvirt-client has some libraries that are > > required by the daemon too. > > > > So what if we: > > > > a) introduce libvirt-libs.rpm where all the libraries would go) > > b) have libvirt-daemon depend on -libs instead of -client, > > c) have libvirt-client install just virsh. > > > > This way we can enable users who really want to have just the daemon > > installed on their system (e.g. because there's one centralized mgmt > > point having the client libs/binaries). > > Actually I did want to have a libvirt-libs RPM way back when we first > added libvirt-client, but was out-voted. I'd be fine with seeing us > introduce a libvirt-libs minimal package. I'm for introducing libvirt-libs too. I'm surprised that you've been out-voted since it's a good practice to place shared libraries or other files into separate package. Pavel -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list