On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 08:13:11AM -0700, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 04:39:39PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > This logic was necessary when socket activation was introduced > > > in libvirt 5.6.0/5.7.0 in order to guarantee smooth upgrades. > > > > > > These days, even the oldest platform that we target ships a > > > version of libvirtd that implements socket activation, so the > > > additional code is no longer useful and we can treat libvirtd > > > the same as all other services. > > > > The upgrade path though can come from a platform that we > > don't support, but we do support upgrade from. > > > > eg we don't support RHEL-8, but upgrades from 8 -> 9 are > > supported. I think it is premature to declare this upgrade > > code no longer useful. > > We do target RHEL 8 still :) /facepalm > RHEL 8 got libvirt 6.0.0, which comes with socket activation support, > back in 2020 with RHEL 8.3. Based on our support policy we only > consider the latest point release a valid target anyway, but in this > case we should absolutely be in the clear. I'm still not convinced that makes this obsolete though. We introduced it but that's not ensuring every deployment is actually using it. We spent some time explaining to people how to stick with non-activation scenarios if they weren't ready to change things like ansible admin scripts from earlier RHEL-8.x Of course with any distro version at all, people could have turned off activation, but with RHEL-9 I'd be more comfortable saying it is unlikely because activation was the default from day 1, unlike 8. 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 :|
