Hi all, I summarized actions on http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status tagged with 06/05 The meeting LOG is below Regards Lars lars_kurth How do you want to run this? We have a set of lose ends: the roadmap via http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003763.html <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003763.html> kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> if someone (lars?) wants to just do it point by point we can run through those. lars_kurth And some open actions: http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status <http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status> kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> there is a 60 min hard stop at the end jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> hi all lars_kurth How about the following: Actions first, then George can do the roadmap? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> ok, works for me lars_kurth Do we all have http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status <http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status> up? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i do gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> yep pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> yep lars_kurth kbsingh: there were 3 technical items on you. I know you and hughesjr and gwd had a conversation kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i believe gwd is setup with the basic workflow, and has git access lars_kurth last week. Is there anything that can be ticked off in the technical category? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> we only imported the main xen repo at this point, but if things are looking ok and if the process is something we can work with - i cna go ahead and import the rest of the repos gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> So it's imported into git.centos.org? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> humm lars_kurth kbsingh: what would the URL be? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> https://git.centos.org/project/sig-virt <https://git.centos.org/project/sig-virt> kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> is where it should come up on lars_kurth definitely there kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> right, so the blocker was how are we going to organise the git repos on github - are we going to setup some teams at the project level or the repos level kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010175.html <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-April/010175.html> is the conversation kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i dont believe we all got to a result there. lars_kurth Do we need to reply to this thread? lars_kurth Or is this more general? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Well you had asked about having a different org for each sig, and Karsten said that sounded reasonable. gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Is there any reason not to give that a try for now? lars_kurth Can we close this now. Or do we just have an action to engage with the discussion? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> I can reply to the thread. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> there are a couple of threads that fall out from this kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> eg. where is the kernel going to be maintained - and is every sig that needs a kernel then going to need to maintain the entire thing kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> or can we just have a single git repo, with sig's maintaining their own branches hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> I see a meeting in progress ...cool lars_kurth hughesjr: hi. A little painful on IRC, but welcome lars_kurth kbsingh: does sounds like a centos-wide decision that needs to be made. I propose to take an action for gwd and me to replay to the respective threads. gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Is there really a difference? Isn't that the point of DVCS? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: for the sake of convenience, I'd say maybe we just trial the model of having everything under /CentOS/ and if or when we run into a problem, we can try to change things around gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> That's certainly a lot easier to begin with. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> ok lars_kurth ok.Cool: I made a note kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> lets take that away then as a todo gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> kbsingh: So you're going to clone all the repos into git.centos.org and github.com/CentOS/ ? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> I've replied to the thread as well lars_kurth Added as new action. Gwd may need to tidy up if I misunderstood kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: yeah, I can go ahead and do that as well - not online right now, but it can be done today lars_kurth IS: KaranbirSingh to put together list of repository names in Xen4CentOS such that we can use it as a baseline - still open? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> yes kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> that should get resolved with the move lars_kurth Alright. Move to Community? lars_kurth My list policy item is still open gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> What was the list policy question? I forget. lars_kurth And we were discussing whether kbsingh wanted to attend the Hackathon. I will need to know pretty soon, as we are running out of space lars_kurth gwd: just send a reminder to people that posting to the list while not subscribed = mail discarded lars_kurth Do we want to keep this, or change it? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> I do want to come to the hackathon gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> discard> got it. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i believe there is some libvirt people as well ? lars_kurth OK. In that case, I will reserve a space and add you to the wiki lars_kurth Yes. Daniel Berrage lars_kurth As well as some other Xen folks working on libvirt gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> jonludlam: Do you know who from the XenServer team is coming? lars_kurth Let me check jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> dave scott jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> me jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> not sure about others jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> euanh, do you know? euanh <ircs://freenode/euanh,isnick> I'm hoping to come lars_kurth http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Hackathon/May2014#Confirmed_attendees <http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Hackathon/May2014#Confirmed_attendees> gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> jonludlam: For this meeting, knowing that you & dave are coming is sufficient I think. lars_kurth jonludlam: you are signed up euanh <ircs://freenode/euanh,isnick> don't know about others jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> David Vrabel and Andrew Cooper on that list gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> lars_kurth: You have an outstanding item to e-mail the -virt mailing list. Are you planning on doing that? Does it make sense to do so if there are only a handful of places left? lars_kurth kbsingh: OK, I will add a few more people as provisional to the list. I only have 40 spaces and all of the remaining 8 are waiting for travel approval, visas, etc. (including kbsingh in the lars_kurth kbsingh: will send instructions to sign you up fully kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> there was also some word from ovirt guys kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i dont know if they have someone local - but they dont have xen support lars_kurth kbsingh: I need to know ASAP who that would be, if they want to get a space kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> ok, i can ping around lars_kurth kbsingh: great pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> iirc ovirt had some sort of Xen support in the beginning pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> and then later they switched to "kvm only" gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Hopefully with the improved libvirt support, getting xen support back in should be straightforward. lars_kurth pasik: I was copied on a thread which says that integrating ovirt with xen+libvirt may be non-trivial as ovirt makes assumptions underneath libvirt pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> lars_kurth: yep gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Shall we put that as another agenda item and finish going through the actions? lars_kurth there are no quick fixes. I would say let's get libvirt support better first and then look at next steps pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> lars_kurth: agreed lars_kurth gwd: How about adding it to longer term roadmap goals gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> lars_kurth: We can certainly have a wishlist -- the question is who's going to do the work. lars_kurth gwd: I will add an action on you to create a roadmap wiki page. Is that OK? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> lars_kurth: Ack. lars_kurth gwd: good question. I think wishlist = looking for a volunteer lars_kurth OK. The last set of open actions was Publicty lars_kurth The state of play was that we got the centos board feedback, made fixes and reported back to Karsten lars_kurth Karsten still has to ACK lars_kurth I asked for Advisory Board approval on the assumption that he would do so lars_kurth So the blocking issue is for the centos board to ACK lars_kurth kbsingh: can you take this on or chase Karsten? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> lars_kurth: i can ping him lars_kurth thanks. Tracked everything lars_kurth gwd: over to you pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> 28 minutes until kbsingh needs to go lars_kurth as an aside: how do I get the IRC logs for this channel? lars_kurth gwd: I think we are all looking at http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003765.html <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-April/003765.html> and responses gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Roadmap> I sent out a mail with a basic discussion of what we talked about two weeks ago; I don't think there were any additions or objections lars_kurth Do we have any disagreements / open questions in this thread? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> So I'll make a concrete to-do list and post it on a wiki page. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> cool gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> I think one thing kbsingh suggested is that we want to have most of the basic stuff sorted out before RHEL 7 comes out in... what, June / July? jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> Not sure if this is the right time to bring this up, but I was wondering about bumping the version of ocaml used when building xen pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> I think the current xen4.2 rpms are built against ocaml3 jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> yep pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> and there was/is the dev repo against ocaml4 aswell jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> I think at some point in xen4centos's history, there was ocaml4 in there pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> yep gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> What happened with that? I don't know any of the histyr pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> so first we need to get the xen 4.4 rpms built, probably against ocaml4 pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: what happened is hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> this issue is it breaks everything else ocaml in the distro jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> yes pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: we just decided to go with the "distro stock ocaml3" because xapi stuff wasn't done yet jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> ocaml is incredibly picky about versions gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Not used to being enterprise yet, I take it... hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> that means, we have to take on also fixing other distro things hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> that are ocaml pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> so do we want to first build xen 4.4 again ocaml3 ? jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> right, unless there's a way for things to co-exist pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> +st hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> jonludlam: I suppose we can do an SCL for xen stuff gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> ...and there's no way to have both versions somehow, and have each package use the library it needs? jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> recent version of ocaml are much happier about coexisting with other versions hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> gwd: if we do ocaml4 as an SCL that would work .. now if we can is another issue jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> hughesjr, would the SCL _contain_ xen then? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> What does SCL stand for? hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> software collections jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> == coexistence of different versions of things DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> missed the libvirt/xen discussion earlier gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Software CoLlection. Nice. pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> xen 4.4.0 src.rpm (for fedora 21) here: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/x/xen-4.4.0-3.fc21.src.rpm <ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/x/xen-4.4.0-3.fc21.src.rpm> gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> pasik: kbsingh showed me how the basic CentOS build system works, so I'm going to try doing the 4.4 update once the repos are sorted out. lars_kurth DV: I don't think we had a specific discussion before gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> (Maybe after doing a more minor update as a test first.) DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> lars_kurth: just a few excahnge on IRC ^^^ pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: that sounds good gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> OK, so can we update to 4.4, then update libvirt, and look into doing ocaml for Xen as an SCL? hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> gwd: that sounds like a good plan lars_kurth gwd: I guess the question is which libvirt version jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> How would an SCL work if xen depends upon it? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Are there any other package updates we need to do? pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> so the first iteration of xen 4.4 rpms would be built against ocaml3, so there's an upgrade path from xen 4.2 rpms ? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> lars_kurth: On the list we decided 1.2.3, the same as Ubuntu 14.04. (Or maybe it was 1.2.2 -- whichever one Ubuntu is using). DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> lars_kurth: what is in Fedora 20 get backports, but it's a bit 'old' already gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: We seem to be talking about libvirt now -- did you have a comment / question / concern? DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> lars_kurth: I think whatever version of libvirt is in ubuntu 14.04 LTS is a good starting point (seriously :D) gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> libvirt 1.2.2 it was, I think. DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: mostly watching, and seeing if there is pit to avoid lars_kurth We could agree on this for now and decide to upgrade later (after the Hackathon discussion) gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: Well we're planning on updating to libvirt 1.2.2, and then maybe backporting important functionality (such as live migration). pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> too bad el7 looks to have libvirt 1.1.1 DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> notes other SIGs may want libvirt updates without becoming over zealous might be worth checking around to minimize builds gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: Noted. Know of any that we should coordinate with? DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> pasik: usually in RHEL there is a lot of backports, so base version not always a good indicator lars_kurth DV, kbsingh: do you have any visibility to what other SIG's need? If not, we should maybe poll on the centos-devel list kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> lars_kurth: yes, and no kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i think we should deliver something, anything, just ship it gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> I think going forward, all changes / pull requests will be posted to the centos-virt list, so any specific change can be objected to when it actually gets submitted. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> that gives people a target to point at DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> kb kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> otherwise we might get into masive wish lists DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> kbsingh, if other sigs are not more advanced, ACk gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> kbsingh: That sounds like a plan. lars_kurth kbsingh: works for me pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> DV: yep kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> yeah, i thin kthe virtsig is perhaps the best place at the moment gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> If kbsingh / hughesjr have their fingers in other sigs, they can bring us in when we need to start coordinating about something. lars_kurth Works for me. So we agreed to start with 1.2.2? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> That's what we talked about on the -virt list, and nobody has objected. pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> let's do what ubuntu 14.04 lts has; so libvirt 1.2.2 lars_kurth Just confirming for the minutes. Agreed then. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> 1.2.2 works for me, if - (1) we have qemu rbd supported for both ceph and gluster ( libfgfacl ) DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> there have been a lot of libxl updates in 1.2.3, but you know better what you need pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> from earlier.. did we agree to build the first xen 4.4 rpms against ocaml3, so the current users of el6 xen 4.2 rpms can upgrade smoothly ? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> pasik: if we didnt, then we should kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> hughesjr: ^ ? ocaml3 ? pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> DV: those libxl updates need to be backported jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> pasik, does the ocaml version have much bearing on the upgrade? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Should we move the really technical discussion to the mailing list? lalatenduM <ircs://freenode/lalatenduM,isnick> kbsingh, I think libvirt 1.2.3 has few imp bug fixes for gluster DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> pasik: and lot of code churn in 1.2.3, this may not be that easy lars_kurth How about, we m pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> hmm kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> lalatenduM: in that case, maybe we should consider 1.2.3 gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Well if backporting is too hard, we can think about moving forward instead. lars_kurth we propose 1.2.2 on the list and ask for any backports necessary (pointing to patches) kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> how about we decide on a 1.2.x and take the conversation to the lists to decide pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> so then let's move to 1.2.4 directly? hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> well .. if we maintai the same major version as ubuntu, things will work better in both places and we can more easily reuse code gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> libvirt said they would do maintenance updates for any downstream actively using it; I think CentOS would be big enough to be worth their consideration. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> given DV has an eye on libvirt, what do you think ? DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> Indent top-level labels by one space in ... Use K&R style for curly braces in ... that kind of patches goes in the way of backports hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> we can do whatever you guys want ... but centos is not intended to be fedora gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Going with 1.2.2 was just an attempt to reduce the burden on upstream. DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> but hard to tell a priori if it really will make it hard DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> <gwd> Well if backporting is too hard, we can think about moving forward instead. : that's reasonable gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Well let's look at 1.2.2 and try a few backports and see how it works. DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> ack lars_kurth Agreed. Will add an action on gwd pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> jonludlam: about ocaml version: like said the current xen 4.2 rpms are built against ocaml3, and if xen 4.4 rpms added ocaml4 as a requirement, then all the distro ocaml stuff would break in the xen 4.2 -> xen 4.4 upgrade.. I don't think we want to do that. pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> jonludlam: so I'd say let's first build xen 4.4 against ocaml3; and then let's figure out the SCL stuff so we can properly do xen 4.4 with ocaml4 jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> pasik, they shouldn't be run-time requirements DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> used to assemble RHEL libvirt builds for too long, some reflexes persists gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> One thing we might want to talk about (maybe on the -devel list) is changing the "binary blob" thing in the CentOS build system to make it earier to collaborate with people who don't have access to the "blob repo" (sorry I don't know the proper terms for these things) pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: lookasides or something gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: I'd much rather learn the easy way, from your experience, than the hard way, from my own. jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> pasik, btw, no problem starting with ocaml3 with a view to seeing how ocaml4 might turn out pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> jonludlam: ok lars_kurth Anything else we need to discuss? DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: TBH the libvirt team use to rebase frequently, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 ... because code changes fast and want to minimize backport loads kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: ok, if you start that off, we can hash it out ( the lookaside thing ) gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Most of the blobs in Xen4Centos seem to be upstream tarballs. One option would be to have a URL of the upstream, with a local cache to make builds reliable. lars_kurth We have 2 minutes: I would propose to raise loose ends after the meeting on the list kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: i guess people can still checkout and do local things, and the get_sources.sh could be injected into the git repo itself DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: that said being 0.0.2 behind means only 2 months, should be okay pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: I was able to do custom local rebuilds of centos src.rpms; I used the get_sources.sh kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i am guessing there isnt a LTS sort of version - so we'd need a plan to keep things patched without needing a system update every 2 months gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> pasik: The hard part would be pull requests. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> do we have any other major points on the agenda pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: true kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: pasik: pull requests on binary data will always be against ( or well, used to be against ) a new srpm kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> so we just run the import pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> lars_kurth: I think we should write something about ocaml version gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> I don't think so -- I'll kick off a discussion on -virt about packages to update gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> And make a roadmap wiki kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> but we can also have remote urls in the .package.metadata file - and people can request merges against that jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> I believe there's been some discussion before about the structure of the xen rpms - is that minuted anywhere? jcpunk <ircs://freenode/jcpunk,isnick> ^^+1 DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: my suggestions, use git, cherry pick from upstream into a set of commit bringing what you want on top of your branch, use that as you patch list lars_kurth pasik, jonludlam: no - can I get you to make a proposal on the list kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> jcpunk: +1 to what jcpunk <ircs://freenode/jcpunk,isnick> looking for documented structure jcpunk <ircs://freenode/jcpunk,isnick> of rpms DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: see the libvirt rpms from Fedora or RHEL they should be largely explicit kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> this was on the virt list ages ago. we essentially went with the carry-in-spec for the leaf nodes needed at build time. gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: That seems reasonable. jcpunk <ircs://freenode/jcpunk,isnick> kbsingh: ah, got it kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> i suspect jonludlam is talking about the entire wider scope pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> lars_kurth: yeah sure, jonludlam is probably the expert with ocaml stuff lars_kurth OK: will add action jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> right, interested in splitting dom0 rpms from domU, etc kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> jonludlam: i dont think we've had that conversation at this point. but we should jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> ok, perhaps next meeting then? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> if we dont have any other items, i just want to bring one in - and this is past the scheduled hour, but worth talking about lars_kurth Maybe next time or on list? jonludlam <ircs://freenode/jonludlam,isnick> gotta run to another meeting now gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> DV: I'm fairly new to RPM building: I take it there's a step where you explicitly export base..tip as a series of patches? gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> kbsingh: I've got time. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> we have a bit of a problem with el7rc kernel not doing pv out of the blocks gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> That's not as a guest, right? pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> kbsingh: only redhat kernel team can do something about that.. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> when i say a bit of a problem - i mean this is a major train crash kind of problem, given how much of hosting and cloud is pv only pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: redhat disabled xen pv support for el7 kernel DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: yes you can ask git to give them a name based on commit text, and in the rpm spec you list them in order pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: (xen hvm is still supported) kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> pasik: right, i dont care about the rhel7 state of play, but we might need to do something in the centos ecosystem and own it locally pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> kbsingh: yep, definitely we should "fix" that for centos7 kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: it is.. as a guest, cant run rhel7 as a pv guest. only hvm-pv and hvm ( ofcourse ) kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> I will get the git repos in place and the acl's setup this week for the xen stuff to happen gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> kbsingh: Oh, that's right. But does it have PVHVM support? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> and we can maybe target a 4.4 build as a testing/qa process. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: yes. pvhvm works gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> kbsingh: So are you thinking of having a CentOS guest kernel that supports PV? pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> yep pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> so probably just a small .config tweak hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> gwd: well, we will have a kernel that supports dom0 too at some point DV <ircs://freenode/DV,isnick> gwd: git log --pretty=%f -1 your-commit and use that as a base for the filename of the associated patch kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> gwd: i dont know - dont want to predecide and havent really spent any time thinking this though - but i do know that we need to ( spend the time, think it through, do something ) kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> o, lars_kurth are we calling this meting closed ? ( i am already on the phone waiting for the next one to open ) pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> kbsingh: yes, i think we should have some kernel variant with "fixed" .config gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> Would the PV kernel be basically the same as the Xen4CentOS dom0? Or a stripped-down version? Or were you thinking of taking the upstream RH kernel and re-enabling PV (meaning another separate kernel branch to maintain)? lars_kurth yes: let's call it closed pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: i think it should upstream-el7-kernel with just the .config tweak hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> gwd: we can do more than one if we want hughesjr <ircs://freenode/hughesjr,isnick> (or need to) pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: and any xen pv specific patches, if there's a need for those ever pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> gwd: so maintenance-wise it would be quite low effort.. hopefully gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> pasik: Well, one would hope... gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> And would that be a change to the main CentOS kernel? Or a separate package that's included for cloud targets? kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> change to main kernel would need quite a major reason, and a lot of shouting and requests - I suspect we dont/wont get that initially. kbsingh <ircs://freenode/kbsingh,isnick> we could carry it on the install media though... so its available to use right off the bat, post install ( specially if its the same version as the install / main kernel ) gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> That sounds pretty do-able. pasik <ircs://freenode/pasik,isnick> yep gwd <ircs://freenode/gwd,isnick> OK -- lars_kurth, are you going to send out a meeting report? lars_kurth gwd: pointing to the actions and appending this log for now _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
