On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:20, Scot P. Floess wrote:> > Hit the send key before actually typing anything :( > > Was going to say - ah OK didn't understand your original question. I'm not > entirely sure - I just followed directions :) However, you ask a reasonable > question. > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> On 27/02/16 01:41, Scot P. Floess wrote: >> > >> > From George's original email, I had to: >> > >> > * Install centos-release-xen from centos-extras >> > >> > Then a yum update followed by a yum install xen. >> > >> > That worked for me... >> > >> >> i had to do something similar, but my question is - one cant run xen >> without the kernel, so why not have the xen package require the xen >> kernel as a prereq ?IMHO, the best way to solve this would a additional line in the spec-file: "Provide: kernel-dom0" for those kernel that are provide this functionality. Then the xen-packages could "Require: kernel-dom0" no matter which way the kernel functionality came to be. Maybe ask even across distros for such a implemention, to get a more coherent experience for xen. Have a nice weekend, - Yamaban.
On 28/02/16 01:52, Yamaban wrote:> IMHO, the best way to solve this would a additional line in the spec-file: > "Provide: kernel-dom0" for those kernel that are provide this > functionality. > > Then the xen-packages could "Require: kernel-dom0" > no matter which way the kernel functionality came to be.The issue there is you can't expect every third-part kernel vendor to add that provide. Many of them won't even realize that their kernel is dom0 capable because any kernel from 3.0 and up is by default (Red Hat went to lengths to actually rip this functionality out of their kernels). So by doing this you still end up forcing people who want to use other legitimate kernels to jump through a lot more hoops. I think a better way would be to create a group that includes xen and the kernel (and possibly other things) and have the installation instructions install the group instead of individual packages. It becomes much easier to replace individual packages (or simply not install them) without breaking deps for yum that way. Peter
On 27/02/16 12:52, Yamaban wrote:> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:20, Scot P. Floess wrote: >> >> Hit the send key before actually typing anything :( >> >> Was going to say - ah OK didn't understand your original question. >> I'm not entirely sure - I just followed directions :) However, you >> ask a reasonable question. >> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> >>> On 27/02/16 01:41, Scot P. Floess wrote: >>> > > From George's original email, I had to: >>> > > * Install centos-release-xen from centos-extras >>> > > Then a yum update followed by a yum install xen. >>> > > That worked for me... >>> > >>> i had to do something similar, but my question is - one cant run xen >>> without the kernel, so why not have the xen package require the xen >>> kernel as a prereq ? > > IMHO, the best way to solve this would a additional line in the spec-file: > "Provide: kernel-dom0" for those kernel that are provide this > functionality. > > Then the xen-packages could "Require: kernel-dom0" > no matter which way the kernel functionality came to be. > > Maybe ask even across distros for such a implemention, > to get a more coherent experience for xen.yeah, the CentOS-5 and 6 Xen stacks already do something similar - which is why I was expecting the CentOS 7 one to do that as well. Let me work this with George and see where he thinks. Regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On 28/02/16 00:04, Peter wrote:> > The issue there is you can't expect every third-part kernel vendor to > add that provide.Everyone who cared to should have done in the last 8 odd years the xen stack has been available on CentOS - beyond that, we should build a good local story and ensure other vendors have the opportunity to come along. You seem to be arguing for a broken story for some third party corner case, We have a local kernel, built for purpose, tested for purpose, and used within the ecosystem by other efforts that require or provide a xen interface, lets just stick with trying to make that better. besides, there is nothing stopping users from later installing whatever other keys they want. Pretty sure a majority of the userbase wont. regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On 28 februarie 2016 12:45:05 EET, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:>On 27/02/16 12:52, Yamaban wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:20, Scot P. Floess wrote: >>> >>> Hit the send key before actually typing anything :( >>> >>> Was going to say - ah OK didn't understand your original question. >>> I'm not entirely sure - I just followed directions :) However, you >>> ask a reasonable question. >>> >>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/02/16 01:41, Scot P. Floess wrote: >>>> > > From George's original email, I had to: >>>> > > * Install centos-release-xen from centos-extras >>>> > > Then a yum update followed by a yum install xen. >>>> > > That worked for me... >>>> > >>>> i had to do something similar, but my question is - one cant run >xen >>>> without the kernel, so why not have the xen package require the >xen >>>> kernel as a prereq ? >> >> IMHO, the best way to solve this would a additional line in the >spec-file: >> "Provide: kernel-dom0" for those kernel that are provide this >> functionality. >> >> Then the xen-packages could "Require: kernel-dom0" >> no matter which way the kernel functionality came to be. >> >> Maybe ask even across distros for such a implemention, >> to get a more coherent experience for xen. > >yeah, the CentOS-5 and 6 Xen stacks already do something similar - >which >is why I was expecting the CentOS 7 one to do that as well. Let me work >this with George and see where he thinks. > >RegardsAFAICS, a simple "Requires: kernel >= 3.18" in the xen package should be enough, at least for the CentOS ecosystem... although I think that elrepo's kernels, on purpose, do not provide "kernel" but "'kernel-ml".
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Yamaban <foerster at lisas.de> wrote:> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:20, Scot P. Floess wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> On 27/02/16 01:41, Scot P. Floess wrote: >>> > > From George's original email, I had to: >>> > > * Install centos-release-xen from centos-extras >>> > > Then a yum update followed by a yum install xen. >>> > > That worked for me... >>> > >>> i had to do something similar, but my question is - one cant run xen >>> without the kernel, so why not have the xen package require the xen >>> kernel as a prereq ?I mostly took the packages as I got them; and for C6, "yum install xen" always just grabbed the newer kernel automatically; but this was apparently because of the version, not because of any advertised capability it provided.> IMHO, the best way to solve this would a additional line in the spec-file: > "Provide: kernel-dom0" for those kernel that are provide this functionality. > > Then the xen-packages could "Require: kernel-dom0" > no matter which way the kernel functionality came to be.This seems like a good idea. If anyone wants to send pull requests to https://github.com/CentOS-virt7/xen and https://github.com/CentOS-virt7/xen-kernel implementing the change I'll be happy to merge them. Otherwise I'll put it on my to-do list.> Maybe ask even across distros for such a implemention, > to get a more coherent experience for xen.I just looked at the Fedora xen package, and it doesn't seem to have any requirement of that sort. I think most distro kernels just have Xen enabled by default, because it's a lot harder to support two packages than just have it enabled all the time. RH is the odd one out to have it disabled entirely. -George