Updated Libvirt Packages (2.2.0-1) In Testing

Home » CentOS-Virt » Updated Libvirt Packages (2.2.0-1) In Testing
CentOS-Virt 7 Comments

The CentOS 7.3 release updated to libvirt 2.0, which is now taking precedence over the previous virt sig libvirt packages (which were
1.3).

I’ve pulled in the changes from Fedora 25, which uses libvirt 2.2.0. I’ve built and tested them for CentOS 7 and they work for me. (I’m having some infrastructure issue testing C6.)

Please test them if you have an opportunity. I’ll leave them there for a week and then push them to release if I don’t have any complaints.

Thanks,
-George

7 thoughts on - Updated Libvirt Packages (2.2.0-1) In Testing

  • I have tried updating using yum update and get the same error as before:
    =========================================================================—> Package libvirt-daemon.x86_64 0:1.3.0-1.el7 will be updated
    –> Processing Dependency: libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7 for package: libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64
    –> Processing Dependency: libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7 for package: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64
    –> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64 (@CentOS-virt-xen)
    Requires: libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7
    Removing: libvirt-daemon-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64 (@CentOS-virt-xen)
    libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7
    Updated By: libvirt-daemon-2.0.0-10.el7_3.2.x86_64 (updates)
    libvirt-daemon = 2.0.0-10.el7_3.2
    Available: libvirt-daemon-1.2.15-104.el7.x86_64 (CentOS-virt-xen)
    libvirt-daemon = 1.2.15-104.el7
    Available: libvirt-daemon-2.0.0-10.el7.x86_64 (base)
    libvirt-daemon = 2.0.0-10.el7
    Error: Package: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64 (@CentOS-virt-xen)
    Requires: libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7
    Removing: libvirt-daemon-1.3.0-1.el7.x86_64 (@CentOS-virt-xen)
    libvirt-daemon = 1.3.0-1.el7
    Updated By: libvirt-daemon-2.0.0-10.el7_3.2.x86_64 (updates)
    libvirt-daemon = 2.0.0-10.el7_3.2
    Available: libvirt-daemon-1.2.15-104.el7.x86_64 (CentOS-virt-xen)
    libvirt-daemon = 1.2.15-104.el7
    Available: libvirt-daemon-2.0.0-10.el7.x86_64 (base)
    libvirt-daemon = 2.0.0-10.el7
    You could try using –skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va –nofiles –nodigest
    =========================================================================I have tried the suggestions, but still no go. Anyone any ideas?
    Francis

    From: “George Dunlap”
    To: “CentOS-virt”
    Sent: Thursday, 5 January, 2017 17:29:30
    Subject: [CentOS-virt] Updated libvirt packages (2.2.0-1) in testing

    The CentOS 7.3 release updated to libvirt 2.0, which is now taking precedence over the previous virt sig libvirt packages (which were
    1.3).

    I’ve pulled in the changes from Fedora 25, which uses libvirt 2.2.0. I’ve built and tested them for CentOS 7 and they work for me. (I’m having some infrastructure issue testing C6.)

    Please test them if you have an opportunity. I’ll leave them there for a week and then push them to release if I don’t have any complaints.

    Thanks,
    -George
    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@CentOS.org https://lists.CentOS.org/mailman/listinfo/CentOS-virt

  • Hmm — I didn’t realize that libvirt shipped their own source rpms.

    There seem to be two distinct classes of users: those who want the newest thing all the time, and those who want to stick with what’s working as long as possible before upgrading. On the whole, CentOS
    seems to be more focused on the second class of people. So I was looking to do a single version bump that we could stick with until the next time there’s a compelling reason to update. Libvirt 2.2 the most recent one used in any Fedora release. As such, in terms of”aftercare” like bug fixes, it will probably get better and for longer than other releases. So it seemed like a good option.

    I’m open to other suggestions, but “update every release” is probably not suitable for the main Xen repo. I wouldn’t be opposed if someone wanted to step up and maintain a repo themselves, though. :-)

    -George

LEAVE A COMMENT