[CentOS-virt] qemu-kvm rebuild in Centos for oVirt in SIG Virt

[George Dunlap]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Karanbir Singh <kbsingh at centos.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/10/2014 05:16 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> They seem keen to get this in sooner rather than later.  Is there
>> yet a way for me to create a new package for the Virt SIG that you
>> could brief me on?  Alternately, could one of the core CentOS team
>> take a bit of time sometime in the next few weeks to build such a
>> package?
>>
>> I tried to build the qemu-kvm package on git.centos.org, hoping to
>> be able to just give you guys a functional repo you could use, but
>> the c6 branch of the repo on git.centos.org seems to be empty.
>
> we are hoping to boot the community buildsystem up in the coming days,
> that would be the best place to handle this.

Excellent -- looking forward to it.

> also, the virt-sig repo setup at this point is the xen4centos repo -
> is that the best place to land this ?

Well I guess we have two options:
1. Rename xen4centos to sigvirt-hv (or something like that -- Virt
SIG, hypervisor level)
2. Create a new repo for qemu changes (kvm4centos? sigvirt-kvm?)

On a practical level, this only affects the (I'm guessing) fairly
small number of people who install two different hypervisors.  For
those people, #1 means opting into all the Virt SIG hypervisors when
opting into one, and having to do something special to get the
upstream version of one and the Virt SIG version of another; while #2
means opting into each Virt SIG hypervisor separately.

I suppose #1 would mean automatically getting for updated ancillary
packages from xen4centos (ocaml?) when you just wanted to install
qemu-kvm.

Choosing #2 may mean a proliferation of repos; but since there will
almost certainly never be more than 4 different hypervisors supported,
that's probably not too big of an issue.  I'm not sure what else it
might mean from a technical perspective.

Anything I missed?

I don't really have strong opinions here.  My personal inclination
would be to just have one repo; but I could see how it might be weird
to accidentally get updated packages related to Xen when you just
wanted snapshotting for KVM.

 -George