On 09/04/2015 04:39 PM, T.Weyergraf wrote:> > > On 09/03/2015 09:50 PM, Chuck Meade wrote: >> Hi Thomas, > Hi Chuck >> >> This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior >> to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. >> After looking around a bit I tried "virtx7-44-candidate", in a sibling >> directory to virtx7-44-testing. It has a more >> recent date, so I tried with that and it works fine. It resolves the >> issues listed in your email from 7/7/2015. > Thanks for letting me know. I actually found the "candiate" packages to > work too, when tried those some days after my email. > However, nowadays I build my own Xen rpm's, based on the Fedora 21 > source package. I modified the spec-file to properly build for CentOS 7 > and adapted some of the patches of the Fedora source package. > > To me, the advantage is proper systemd intergration. It has systemd unit > files for all xen-related services. Likewise, I keep the version up to > date to my taste, like running 4.4.3. > My xen-packages work well for me and if anybody is interested, I can > polish things up a bit, setup a repo and make them accessible.What we really need is to make the REAL xen RPMs .. the ones produced in this SIG .. work with systemd. These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we need to get the right. So, what works and what does not work (ie, no systemd integration problem) needs to be addressed. We don't want to create forked repos, IMHO. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20150907/a7e7deb2/attachment-0002.sig>
On 09/07/2015 12:40 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:> On 09/04/2015 04:39 PM, T.Weyergraf wrote: >> >> On 09/03/2015 09:50 PM, Chuck Meade wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >> Hi Chuck >>> This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior >>> to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. >>> After looking around a bit I tried "virtx7-44-candidate", in a sibling >>> directory to virtx7-44-testing. It has a more >>> recent date, so I tried with that and it works fine. It resolves the >>> issues listed in your email from 7/7/2015. >> Thanks for letting me know. I actually found the "candiate" packages to >> work too, when tried those some days after my email. >> However, nowadays I build my own Xen rpm's, based on the Fedora 21 >> source package. I modified the spec-file to properly build for CentOS 7 >> and adapted some of the patches of the Fedora source package. >> >> To me, the advantage is proper systemd intergration. It has systemd unit >> files for all xen-related services. Likewise, I keep the version up to >> date to my taste, like running 4.4.3. >> My xen-packages work well for me and if anybody is interested, I can >> polish things up a bit, setup a repo and make them accessible. > What we really need is to make the REAL xen RPMs .. the ones produced in > this SIG .. work with systemd. These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we > need to get the right. > > So, what works and what does not work (ie, no systemd integration > problem) needs to be addressed. > > We don't want to create forked repos, IMHO.First of all, I fully agree, that forked repos are undesirable. However, to the casual observer (like me), there are hardly any ressources for Xen on CentOS 7. There are some beta packages, as announced in the start if this thread, with the latest update being 4.4.2 on 4th of august. I have not yet found any git repo to check out the current Xen 4 CentOS 7 development effort - only the source rpms to the above packages could be used. Likewise, the response on the list on the announcements of the Xen on CentOS 7 beta packages was kind of mute and no further updates were given. This led me to the - apparently false - assumption, that the project kind of fell asleep. I'd be more than happy to at least test development packages and give feedback. Your statement "These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we need to get the right" irritates me, as I was completely unaware of any "rights" from Citrix to be waited for. Anyway, I will wait for the official Xen4CentOS packages for CentOS 7 and keep my stuff out of the public to avoid useless forks.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:02 PM, T.Weyergraf <T.Weyergraf at virtfinity.de> wrote:> First of all, I fully agree, that forked repos are undesirable. However, to > the casual observer (like me), there are hardly any ressources for Xen on > CentOS 7. There are some beta packages, as announced in the start if this > thread, with the latest update being 4.4.2 on 4th of august. I have not yet > found any git repo to check out the current Xen 4 CentOS 7 development > effort - only the source rpms to the above packages could be used. Likewise, > the response on the list on the announcements of the Xen on CentOS 7 beta > packages was kind of mute and no further updates were given. This led me to > the - apparently false - assumption, that the project kind of fell asleep. > I'd be more than happy to at least test development packages and give > feedback. > > Your statement "These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we need to get the > right" irritates me, as I was completely unaware of any "rights" from Citrix > to be waited for. > > Anyway, I will wait for the official Xen4CentOS packages for CentOS 7 and > keep my stuff out of the public to avoid useless forks.So actually, the SIGs are supposed to be community efforts -- and my long term hope was that once the SIG was "jump-started", that community members would step up to take over -- or at least step up to help significantly. A number of reasons C7 has "stalled": * Lack of time on my part. I only work 4 days a week for Citrix, and I have significant other duties. Normally I can only spend a day or so a week on CentOS stuff; and in particular, the review load relating to the 4.6 feature freeze (beginning of July) was very high. Then I got married and went on holiday for 3 weeks in August, which also didn't help. :-) * Apparent lack of testing by the community. About a month after the C7 "beta", I was about to announce an actual release, when I happened to discover that HVM guests wouldn't boot -- not under any configuration. This is really basic core functionality that nobody at all had tested (or if they had they hadn't complained). This convinced me that I couldn't rely on community testing, and prompted me to spend some time writing an automated test suite that would at least do a basic smoke-test for a number of configurations. I've got this working for the core xen package, but I was planning on extending it to libvirt before declaring CentOS 7 "ready". I'm sorry I haven't been very pro-active about pushing to the xen package repository -- I didn't know anyone was looking. (If you asked about it, then I must have missed it.) I would be happy to have help improving the packages. I would be *very* happy to have help maintaining the Xen4CentOS packages, and I would be *delighted* if someone wanted to take over maintainership of the packages entirely. FYI I have just finished rebasing things to 4.6-rc2 (there are packages in virt7-xen-46-candidate now), and am in the process of switching things over to systemd. The Virt SIG has IRC meetings on freenode channel #centos-devel every two weeks -- the next one is today (8 September) at 2pm BST (3pm UTC). If anyone wants to help contribute / see what the status of Xen4CentOS is, feel free to pop in. -George
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> What we really need is to make the REAL xen RPMs .. the ones produced in > this SIG .. work with systemd. These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we > need to get the right.Just to be clear -- RPMs are produced by the CentOS Virt SIG, which is meant to be an open, community-developed project. At the moment the xen maintainer happens to work for Citrix, but that's neither here nor there. If there are people who feel like they want to contribute but can't, please speak up. It takes an effort to do things "in the open", as it were, and if I don't know anybody's "listening" it's a lot easier just to do things on my own. -George
On 09/08/2015 06:41 AM, George Dunlap wrote:> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> What we really need is to make the REAL xen RPMs .. the ones produced in >> this SIG .. work with systemd. These RPMs are produced by Citrix, so we >> need to get the right. > > Just to be clear -- RPMs are produced by the CentOS Virt SIG, which is > meant to be an open, community-developed project. At the moment the > xen maintainer happens to work for Citrix, but that's neither here nor > there. > > If there are people who feel like they want to contribute but can't, > please speak up. It takes an effort to do things "in the open", as it > were, and if I don't know anybody's "listening" it's a lot easier just > to do things on my own. > > -GeorgeRight ... I said 'produced by' in relation to Citrix, but I clearly meant to say 'lead by' instead. The point I am trying to make is that we (the SIG, as a community) want to produce RPMs here (in the SIG) that are of use to the community and not fragment to a bunch of different individual people making a bunch of different RPM sets that the community does not know who produces, etc. If we can produce the RPMs instead on the community build system where we (the SIG .. with representation from both the CentOS Project and Citrix) can sign and release the packages then users can be much more sure everything works, etc. For that to happen, we have to work as a group. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20150908/4e232938/attachment-0002.sig>