[CentOS-virt] Meeting bot (was Re: Log from today's IRC meeting (June 3rd, 2014))

Tue Jun 3 17:57:19 UTC 2014
Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com>

Hash: SHA1

Side-topic (and subject changed), but do we have centbot running in
this channel?

I'd love to get us in the habit of using Meetbot, it makes for such
nice meeting minutes and logs. Can I offer to join all meetings
happening for the next little while and run the bot to show how the
flow works? (I can also moderate any IRC meeting that folks want, so
all of you can be participants; it can be hard to moderate IRC and
also discuss.)

Anyone who wants that help etc. you can invite me to your meeting,
karstenwade at gmail.com is my calendar.

Thanks - Karsten

On 06/03/2014 10:06 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> With slight re-ordering to keep related things together
> <kbsingh> lars_kurth: Hi  [13:52] <kbsingh> Are we doing this
> meeting on irc ? <lars_kurth> kbsingh: yes, we are  [13:59] 
> <lars_kurth> gwd: Hi.  [14:02] <lars_kurth> Alright. I didn't put
> an agenda together <gwd> I've got a couple of things I wanted to
> bring up. [14:04] <gwd> Who else is here for the meeting? 
> <lars_kurth> Please do. I think KB has some too <jonludlam> Hello 
> <lars_kurth> gwd: seems we have jonludlam, kbsingh gwd and me so
> far [14:05] <lars_kurth> Hi. Before we properly start. Any changes
> on actions on 
> http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status
> ? <lars_kurth> So: no changes then?  [14:06] <gwd> We chatted at
> the hackathon (with Daniel Barrange there) about libvirt versions 
> <jonludlam> That was a good session  [14:07] <lars_kurth> gwd: what
> was the outcome/recommendation? <gwd> What we said there was that
> libvirt/libxl driver isn't yet stable, so there's no point doing a
> "choose a version and stick with it" thing until it is. 
> <lars_kurth> gwd: that is what I was afraid of  [14:08] <jonludlam>
> so libvirt becomes a 'tech preview' until it stabilises? <gwd> Er,
> I don't think "tech preview" <jonludlam> 'unstable'? <gwd> More
> like, "Not enterprise". :-) <jonludlam> ok <pasik> hello  [14:09] 
> <jonludlam> hi pasik <gwd> pasik: Hello <gwd> You know, like the
> kernel we want to be "enterprise" and only update every 2+ years. 
> <lars_kurth> But that is only an issue for libxl, mot xm. Correct?
> If we are still talking Xen 4.4 that should not be an issue <gwd> I
> don't think we want to encourage anyone to use xend if we can 
> possibly help it. <gwd> We need to transition people away from it.
> [14:10] <jonludlam> libvirt is a reasonable transition strategy
> though <gwd> Is there a need for "enterprise libvirt"?  Is anyone
> using that? <pasik> Hopefully we can get thinks into better shape
> with xen 4.4 + later libvirt <lars_kurth> Agreed. How about the
> needs of KVM, oVirt, ... for libvirt <pasik> with the current xen
> 4.2 packages basicly only xend is usable (with libvirt) <gwd> pasik
> / euanh: We were just talking about how often to update the libvirt
> packages. <jonludlam> ovirt will take a good deal of porting to
> work with xen <lars_kurth> jonludlam: correct. But this SIG is not
> about Xen only  [14:11] <jonludlam> true, but <gwd> jonludlam:
> given how much hypervisor detail is exposed by libvirt, how
> reliable would a libvirt/xend -> libvirt/libxl transition go? 
> <jonludlam> What was said was that ovirt effectively doesn't need 
> anything provided by what we're looking at in sig virt today
> [14:12] <jonludlam> gwd, I don't think it would be too bad - it
> already autodetects whether to use xl or xm based on what's
> installed, if you connect to xen:// <gwd> lars_kurth: I think if
> someone wants to use oVirt+KVM, they can use the core libvirt. 
> <gwd> jonludlam: Sure, but as we found out, libvirt doesn't try
> very hard to hide the hypervisor details.  [14:13] <jonludlam> qemu
> was mentioned in the meeting at the hackathon, but it's totally
> orthogonal to everything else in the SIG so far <jonludlam> gwd,
> but the difference between libxl and xend is much smaller than
> between qemu and xen <gwd> Sure; but it may still be a fairly major
> headache to get stuff to work. <lars_kurth> kbsingh: any views? I
> thought you were worried about scope creep in the SIG. <lars_kurth>
> Sorry: SIG  [14:14] <gwd> And what actually works well with
> libvirt+xen at the moment anyway? xm/xl are better than virsh,
> IMHO <lars_kurth> gwd: That is probably correct. On the other hand,
> we don't have an interface into Cloud SIGs until we have libvirt
> and/or xapi <jonludlam> the xapi question was a bit clearer after
> the meetings. Anil and KB talked about an OCaml SIG that the virt
> SIG could <gwd> lars_kurth: Yes, but those are not going to be
> enterprisey either. :-) <lars_kurth> gwd: so what is the proposal 
> <gwd> The proprosals are: depend on <gwd> 1) Choose a version of
> libvirt (1.2.3 maybe) and stick with it, backporting functionality
> we're missing.  [14:16] <gwd> 2) Update the libvirt package when
> there's a new libvirt release until libxl support is mature enough 
> <pasik> gwd: I use virt-install often to install new VMs <pasik>
> gwd: imho it's the easiest way to launch $distro installers in a PV
> domU  [14:17] <gwd> #2 is easier for us, and will get us all the
> available libvirt/xen functionality; it's what we favored at the
> metting at the hackathon. <pasik> gwd: and virt-install works with
> xen4.2+xend+libvirt in el6 <gwd> The only downside is that
> enterprise customers don't like such frequent updates. <jonludlam>
> Daniel B said that #1 would be tricky, as they were refactoring the
> other bits of libvirt to make the xl plugin easier [14:18] <DV> We
> really try to not break libvirt upstream, ideally having the git 
> version run for regtests on libxl would be a good idea <gwd> DV:
> Upstream Xen Project already does that. <DV> * DV agrees with danpb
> , even in RHEL we rebase to try to avoid backporting <gwd> Having a
> new libvirt shouldn't *interfere* with oVirt, virt-install, &c&c.
> [14:19] <DV> gwd: ah, good, are the result available publicly, if
> yes then maybe breakages should be reported on libvirt-list! <DV>
> err libvir-list@ <gwd> DV: Can you mail me about that separately?
> It's a bit off-topic for the current meeting. :-)  [14:20] <DV>
> gwd: hum, the problem is that there is usually a few RHEL specific
>  patches which used to be carried on libvirt builds <lars_kurth>
> Related to the libvirt version discussion is 
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-May/003832.html 
> <pasik> gwd: and also virt-manager works OK with el6
> xen4.2+xend+libvirt <pasik> gwd: for basic VM management
> operations, and new VM installs <DV> but I think we tried to reduce
> them as much as possible <pasik> gwd: so maybe that answers your
> "And what actually works well with libvirt+xen at the moment
> anyway?" <DV> pasik: ah, good to know !  [14:21] <gwd> Just to be
> clear: the question is NOT "do we need libvirt".  Yes, we
> absolutely do. <gwd> The question is, "Do we need a super-stable
> libvirt, or can we just update on new releases for the time being."
> [14:22] <lars_kurth> Related to that is then: how long would we be
> on cutting edge libvirt version (by gut feel) <jonludlam> gwd, and,
> if we are updating to new releases often, is that with a view to
> converging? <pasik> gwd: well, centos6 is an enterprise stable
> distro, se people expect things to be (at least semi) stable. 
> <pasik> gwd: we can of course make it clear libvirt will change
> more often.. [14:23] <gwd> Well let's discuss this on the list. 
> <DV> * DV think within the SIG the rule 'things should be
> absolutely rock solid' could be relaxed, but only a bit   [14:24] 
> <gwd> kbsingh: Actually, that's another question: centos-devel
> isn't really that high traffic.  Would it make sense to have the
> development discussions held on there? <gwd> OK, so that's going to
> be taken back to the list. [14:25] <lars_kurth> OK: adding an
> action <lars_kurth> gwd: are you OK to make a proposal?  [14:26] 
> <gwd> That's all the updates I have from the status: we're still
> waiting for the core CentOS team to get something set up to make
> contribution easier; there was some discussion of using koji, like
> Fedora. <gwd> lars_kurth: Yes, I'll do that. <lars_kurth> What next
> on the agenda?  [14:29] <gwd> Did everyone see the Xen Hackathon
> meeting minutes? Anyone have any questions about that? <lars_kurth>
> See 
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-June/003865.html
> for meeting minutes <gwd> jonludlam: "...with a view to converging"
> -- you mean, to stop updating once libvirt+libxl is mature?  Yes,
> that was my idea.  [14:30] <jonludlam> yes <gwd> Cool. <jonludlam>
> although exactly how to define maturity is left unspecified :-)
> [14:31] <gwd> So I had one quick question for kbsingh -- should I
> merge my "git am" change into the main CentOS repo on github?  Is
> there anything else that need to get that actually built? 
> <lars_kurth> kbsingh: AYT?  [14:32] <gwd> (Or maybe hughesjr ^) 
> <gwd> OK, I think most of what I had really needs kb's input. :-)
> [14:34] <lars_kurth> gwd: maybe ping kbsingh and/or hughesjr  an
> e-mail (or on-list) <gwd> Related to the "build images" thing -- is
> there a better way to make images that doesn't require libvirt?
> [14:35] <lars_kurth> Any other items from 
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/2014-June/003865.html
> that we need to discuss? <gwd> The only tool like that I've ever
> used is xen-tools, which might be possible, but it would be nicer
> if there were something that could make images either for Xen or
> KVM.  [14:36] <lars_kurth> It seems it may make sense to track
> jonludlam about Ocaml SIG and XAPI in the actions <jonludlam>
> lars_kurth, sure <lars_kurth> jonludlam: can you summarize that
> discussion briefly? <jonludlam> I'll poke anil :-) <jonludlam>
> Right: anil & KB discussed creating an OCaml SIG which would take
> the most recent version of the ocaml compiler: 4.01  [14:37] 
> <jonludlam> RHEL 7 will have 4.00.1 (not recent enough) <jonludlam>
> SIG virt could then depend upon the OCaml SIG, but crucially, only
> the OCaml bindings from the sig virt would then depend upon the
> ocaml sig  [14:38] <jonludlam> oxenstore doesn't need any runtime
> dependence on any ocaml libs <lars_kurth> OK. Makes sense. So the
> ball is in Anil's court <jonludlam> correct <lars_kurth> gwd,
> pasik: re xen-tools ... anyone knows whether there is such a thing
> for Xen and KVM  [14:39] <gwd> lars_kurth: I don't understand the
> question.  [14:41] <lars_kurth> gwd: was referring back to
> xen-tools ... what I meant is whether virt-manager provides the
> same functionality + more than xen-tools <gwd> lars_kurth:
> virt-install I think will do that, but it depends on libvirt; which
> seems to confuse some people.  [14:44] <lars_kurth> gwd: re
> virt-install confusion. If we introduced something else, it is
> likely it will also confuse people. In any case may be better to
> rely on documentation  [14:45] <gwd> virt-install> But I guess when
> we add an updated libvirt, then things should work more easily. 
> <jonludlam> lars_kurth, btw, I had another action to send a PR with
>  updated RPM packaging layout as an RFC <gwd> jonludlam: You should
> be able to d/l the tarballs manually though. <gwd> jonludlam: And I
> had an action to send you a how-to build the sig-virt-xen repos 
> <jonludlam> yup!  [14:42] <lars_kurth> jonludlam: OK, a new one?
> What is the context? <gwd> jonludlam: But it turns out the
> binary-download thing isn't ready yet -- KB doesn't want the world
> spamming his (previously) private ftp server. They're trying to
> come up with a new system similar to Fedora, but it's not ready
> yet.  [14:43] <jonludlam> gwd, ok - are there many that aren't in
> the current Xen4CentOS SRPM repo? <gwd> (There was just someone on
> centos-virt complaining about how hard it was to build an image for
> Xen4CentOS and the poor documentation.) <jonludlam> lars_kurth, the
> idea was to try to get the work done by Andy Cooper & co to
> reorganise the layout of the binary RPMs taken up <lars_kurth> gwd:
> thank you. Got it  [14:46] <lars_kurth> jonludlum: Added the
> action <lars_kurth> Looks we are running out of steam. Anything
> else? <gwd> No -- I think following up on the "where do oVirt and
> xapi go" discussion is the only other thing I had, but we need KB
> for that. <lars_kurth> OK. Maybe it is better to do this on the
> next call. It's easier then  [14:49] <gwd> OK -- any other
> business? <lars_kurth> Alright: we are closed then  [14:52] <gwd>
> OK, looks like we're done. 
> _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing
> list CentOS-virt at centos.org 
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

- -- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade        .^\          CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org    \  http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC)  \v'             gpg: AD0E0C41
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/