On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 10:22:00AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 05:17:35PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> > +%package daemon-plugin-lockd
> > +Plugin for virtlockd
> > +Requires: libvirt-libs = %{version}-%{release}
>
> Maybe libvirt-daemon-lock-plugin-lockd? A bit verbose, but would help
> better differenciate it from other loadable drivers.
The other loadable drivers are in libvirt-dameon-driver-XXX
packages, so IMHO it is already easily distinguished by
being in a libvirt-daemon-plugin-XXX package. So lets
keep it more concise as Jim has it named here.
> Either way, we should take the existing libvirt-lock-sanlock package
> and convert it to the new naming convention for consistency.
Yes.
> Both packages should depend on libvirt-daemon-lock too, instead of
> just the libraries.
Nope, they shouldn't - that's the virtlockd server, which is completely
separate from these plugins.
>
> > +%files daemon-plugin-lockd
> > +%dir %attr(0755, root, root) %{_libdir}/libvirt/lock-driver
>
> I believe this directory belongs to either the libvirt-daemon-lock
> package (more likely) or possibly the libvirt-daemon-common package.
>
> --
> Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
>
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
