Hi all, I summarized actions on http://wiki.CentOS.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status tagged with 06/05
The meeting LOG is below Regards Lars

lars_kurth How do you want to run this? We have a set of lose ends: the roadmap via http://lists.CentOS.org/pipermail/CentOS-virt/2014-April/003763.html

kbsingh if someone (lars?) wants to just do it point by point we can run through those. lars_kurth And some open actions:
http://wiki.CentOS.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status

kbsingh there is a 60 min hard stop at the end jonludlam hi all lars_kurth How about the following: Actions first, then George can do the roadmap?
kbsingh ok, works for me lars_kurth Do we all have http://wiki.CentOS.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Virtualization/Status
up?
kbsingh i do gwd yep pasik yep lars_kurth kbsingh: there were 3 technical items on you. I know you and hughesjr and gwd had a conversation kbsingh i believe gwd is setup with the basic workflow, and has git access lars_kurth last week. Is there anything that can be ticked off in the technical category?
kbsingh we only imported the main xen repo at this point, but if things are looking ok and if the process is something we can work with – i cna go ahead and import the rest of the repos gwd So it’s imported into git.CentOS.org?
kbsingh humm lars_kurth kbsingh: what would the URL be?
kbsingh
https://git.CentOS.org/project/sig-virt

kbsingh is where it should come up on lars_kurth definitely there kbsingh right, so the blocker was how are we going to organise the git repos on github – are we going to setup some teams at the project level or the repos level kbsingh
http://lists.CentOS.org/pipermail/CentOS-devel/2014-April/010175.html

is the conversation kbsingh i dont believe we all got to a result there. lars_kurth Do we need to reply to this thread?
lars_kurth Or is this more general?
gwd Well you had asked about having a different org for each sig, and Karsten said that sounded reasonable. gwd Is there any reason not to give that a try for now?
lars_kurth Can we close this now. Or do we just have an action to engage with the discussion?
gwd I can reply to the thread. kbsingh there are a couple of threads that fall out from this kbsingh eg. where is the kernel going to be maintained – and is every sig that needs a kernel then going to need to maintain the entire thing kbsingh or can we just have a single git repo, with sig’s maintaining their own branches hughesjr I see a meeting in progress
…cool lars_kurth hughesjr: hi. A little painful on IRC, but welcome lars_kurth kbsingh: does sounds like a CentOS-wide decision that needs to be made. I propose to take an action for gwd and me to replay to the respective threads. gwd Is there really a difference? Isn’t that the point of DVCS?
kbsingh gwd: for the sake of convenience, I’d say maybe we just trial the model of having everything under /CentOS/ and if or when we run into a problem, we can try to change things around gwd That’s certainly a lot easier to begin with. kbsingh ok lars_kurth ok.Cool: I made a note kbsingh lets take that away then as a todo gwd kbsingh: So you’re going to clone all the repos into git.CentOS.org and github.com/CentOS/ ?
kbsingh I’ve replied to the thread as well lars_kurth Added as new action. Gwd may need to tidy up if I misunderstood kbsingh gwd: yeah, I can go ahead and do that as well – not online right now, but it can be done today lars_kurth IS: KaranbirSingh to put together list of repository names in Xen4CentOS such that we can use it as a baseline – still open?
kbsingh yes kbsingh that should get resolved with the move lars_kurth Alright. Move to Community?
lars_kurth My list policy item is still open gwd What was the list policy question? I
forget. lars_kurth And we were discussing whether kbsingh wanted to attend the Hackathon. I will need to know pretty soon, as we are running out of space lars_kurth gwd: just send a reminder to people that posting to the list while not subscribed = mail discarded lars_kurth Do we want to keep this, or change it?
kbsingh I do want to come to the hackathon gwd discard> got it. kbsingh i believe there is some libvirt people as well ?
lars_kurth OK. In that case, I will reserve a space and add you to the wiki lars_kurth Yes. Daniel Berrage lars_kurth As well as some other Xen folks working on libvirt gwd jonludlam: Do you know who from the XenServer team is coming?
lars_kurth Let me check jonludlam dave scott jonludlam me jonludlam not sure about others jonludlam euanh, do you know?
euanh I’m hoping to come lars_kurth http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Hackathon/May2014#Confirmed_attendees

gwd jonludlam: For this meeting, knowing that you & dave are coming is sufficient I think. lars_kurth jonludlam: you are signed up euanh don’t know about others jonludlam David Vrabel and Andrew Cooper on that list gwd lars_kurth: You have an outstanding item to e-mail the -virt mailing list. Are you planning on doing that?
Does it make sense to do so if there are only a handful of places left?
lars_kurth kbsingh: OK, I will add a few more people as provisional to the list. I only have 40 spaces and all of the remaining 8 are waiting for travel approval, visas, etc. (including kbsingh in the lars_kurth kbsingh: will send instructions to sign you up fully kbsingh there was also some word from ovirt guys kbsingh i dont know if they have someone local – but they dont have xen support lars_kurth kbsingh: I need to know ASAP who that would be, if they want to get a space kbsingh ok, i can ping around lars_kurth kbsingh: great pasik iirc ovirt had some sort of Xen support in the beginning pasik and then later they switched to
“kvm only”
gwd Hopefully with the improved libvirt support, getting xen support back in should be straightforward. lars_kurth pasik: I was copied on a thread which says that integrating ovirt with xen+libvirt may be non-trivial as ovirt makes assumptions underneath libvirt pasik lars_kurth: yep gwd Shall we put that as another agenda item and finish going through the actions?
lars_kurth there are no quick fixes. I would say let’s get libvirt support better first and then look at next steps pasik lars_kurth: agreed lars_kurth gwd: How about adding it to longer term roadmap goals gwd lars_kurth: We can certainly have a wishlist — the question is who’s going to do the work. lars_kurth gwd: I will add an action on you to create a roadmap wiki page. Is that OK?
gwd lars_kurth: Ack. lars_kurth gwd: good question. I think wishlist = looking for a volunteer lars_kurth OK. The last set of open actions was Publicty lars_kurth The state of play was that we got the CentOS board feedback, made fixes and reported back to Karsten lars_kurth Karsten still has to ACK
lars_kurth I asked for Advisory Board approval on the assumption that he would do so lars_kurth So the blocking issue is for the CentOS board to ACK
lars_kurth kbsingh: can you take this on or chase Karsten?
kbsingh lars_kurth: i can ping him lars_kurth thanks. Tracked everything lars_kurth gwd: over to you pasik 28 minutes until kbsingh needs to go lars_kurth as an aside: how do I get the IRC logs for this channel?
lars_kurth gwd: I think we are all looking at http://lists.CentOS.org/pipermail/CentOS-virt/2014-April/003765.html

and responses gwd Roadmap> I sent out a mail with a basic discussion of what we talked about two weeks ago; I don’t think there were any additions or objections lars_kurth Do we have any disagreements / open questions in this thread?
gwd So I’ll make a concrete to-do list and post it on a wiki page. kbsingh cool gwd I think one thing kbsingh suggested is that we want to have most of the basic stuff sorted out before RHEL 7
comes out in… what, June / July?
jonludlam Not sure if this is the right time to bring this up, but I was wondering about bumping the version of ocaml used when building xen pasik I think the current xen4.2 rpms are built against ocaml3
jonludlam yep pasik and there was/is the dev repo against ocaml4 aswell jonludlam I think at some point in xen4CentOS’s history, there was ocaml4 in there pasik yep gwd What happened with that? I don’t know any of the histyr pasik so first we need to get the xen
4.4 rpms built, probably against ocaml4
pasik gwd: what happened is hughesjr this issue is it breaks everything else ocaml in the distro jonludlam yes pasik gwd: we just decided to go with the “distro stock ocaml3” because xapi stuff wasn’t done yet jonludlam ocaml is incredibly picky about versions gwd Not used to being enterprise yet, I
take it… hughesjr that means, we have to take on also fixing other distro things hughesjr that are ocaml pasik so do we want to first build xen
4.4 again ocaml3 ?
jonludlam right, unless there’s a way for things to co-exist pasik +st hughesjr jonludlam: I suppose we can do an SCL for xen stuff gwd …and there’s no way to have both versions somehow, and have each package use the library it needs?
jonludlam recent version of ocaml are much happier about coexisting with other versions hughesjr gwd: if we do ocaml4 as an SCL that would work .. now if we can is another issue jonludlam hughesjr, would the SCL
_contain_ xen then?
gwd What does SCL stand for?
hughesjr software collections jonludlam == coexistence of different versions of things DV missed the libvirt/xen discussion earlier gwd Software CoLlection. Nice. pasik xen 4.4.0 src.rpm (for fedora 21)
here:
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/x/xen-4.4.0-3.fc21.src.rpm

gwd pasik: kbsingh showed me how the basic CentOS build system works, so I’m going to try doing the 4.4 update once the repos are sorted out. lars_kurth DV: I don’t think we had a specific discussion before gwd (Maybe after doing a more minor update as a test first.)
DV lars_kurth: just a few excahnge on IRC ^^^
pasik gwd: that sounds good gwd OK, so can we update to 4.4, then update libvirt, and look into doing ocaml for Xen as an SCL?
hughesjr gwd: that sounds like a good plan lars_kurth gwd: I guess the question is which libvirt version jonludlam How would an SCL work if xen depends upon it?
gwd Are there any other package updates we need to do?
pasik so the first iteration of xen 4.4
rpms would be built against ocaml3, so there’s an upgrade path from xen
4.2 rpms ?
gwd lars_kurth: On the list we decided
1.2.3, the same as Ubuntu 14.04. (Or maybe it was 1.2.2 — whichever one Ubuntu is using). DV lars_kurth: what is in Fedora 20 get backports, but it’s a bit ‘old’ already gwd DV: We seem to be talking about libvirt now — did you have a comment / question / concern?
DV gwd hughesjr lars_kurth: I think whatever version of libvirt is in ubuntu 14.04 LTS is a good starting point
(seriously :D)
gwd libvirt 1.2.2 it was, I think. DV gwd: mostly watching, and seeing if there is pit to avoid lars_kurth We could agree on this for now and decide to upgrade later
(after the Hackathon discussion)
gwd DV: Well we’re planning on updating to libvirt 1.2.2, and then maybe backporting important functionality (such as live migration). pasik too bad el7 looks to have libvirt
1.1.1
DV notes other SIGs may want libvirt updates without becoming over zealous might be worth checking around to minimize builds gwd DV: Noted. Know of any that we should coordinate with?
DV pasik: usually in RHEL there is a lot of backports, so base version not always a good indicator lars_kurth DV, kbsingh: do you have any visibility to what other SIG’s need? If not, we should maybe poll on the CentOS-devel list kbsingh lars_kurth: yes, and no kbsingh i think we should deliver something, anything, just ship it gwd I think going forward, all changes /
pull requests will be posted to the CentOS-virt list, so any specific change can be objected to when it actually gets submitted. kbsingh that gives people a target to point at DV kb kbsingh otherwise we might get into masive wish lists DV kbsingh, if other sigs are not more advanced, ACk gwd kbsingh: That sounds like a plan. lars_kurth kbsingh: works for me pasik DV: yep kbsingh yeah, i thin kthe virtsig is perhaps the best place at the moment gwd If kbsingh / hughesjr have their fingers in other sigs, they can bring us in when we need to start coordinating about something. lars_kurth Works for me. So we agreed to start with 1.2.2?
gwd That’s what we talked about on the
-virt list, and nobody has objected. pasik let’s do what ubuntu 14.04 lts has; so libvirt 1.2.2
lars_kurth Just confirming for the minutes. Agreed then. kbsingh 1.2.2 works for me, if – (1)
we have qemu rbd supported for both ceph and gluster ( libfgfacl )
DV there have been a lot of libxl updates in 1.2.3, but you know better what you need pasik from earlier.. did we agree to build the first xen 4.4 rpms against ocaml3, so the current users of el6
xen 4.2 rpms can upgrade smoothly ?
kbsingh pasik: if we didnt, then we should kbsingh hughesjr: ^ ? ocaml3 ?
pasik DV: those libxl updates need to be backported jonludlam pasik, does the ocaml version have much bearing on the upgrade?
gwd Should we move the really technical discussion to the mailing list?
lalatenduM kbsingh, I think libvirt
1.2.3 has few imp bug fixes for gluster DV pasik: and lot of code churn in 1.2.3, this may not be that easy lars_kurth How about, we m pasik hmm kbsingh lalatenduM: in that case, maybe we should consider 1.2.3
gwd Well if backporting is too hard, we can think about moving forward instead. lars_kurth we propose 1.2.2 on the list and ask for any backports necessary (pointing to patches)
kbsingh how about we decide on a 1.2.x and take the conversation to the lists to decide pasik so then let’s move to 1.2.4 directly?
hughesjr well .. if we maintai the same major version as ubuntu, things will work better in both places and we can more easily reuse code gwd libvirt said they would do maintenance updates for any downstream actively using it; I think CentOS would be big enough to be worth their consideration. kbsingh given DV has an eye on libvirt, what do you think ?
DV Indent top-level labels by one space in
… Use K&R style for curly braces in … that kind of patches goes in the way of backports hughesjr we can do whatever you guys want … but CentOS is not intended to be fedora gwd Going with 1.2.2 was just an attempt to reduce the burden on upstream. DV but hard to tell a priori if it really will make it hard DV Well if backporting is too hard, we can think about moving forward instead. : that’s reasonable gwd Well let’s look at 1.2.2 and try a few backports and see how it works. DV ack lars_kurth Agreed. Will add an action on gwd pasik jonludlam: about ocaml version:
like said the current xen 4.2 rpms are built against ocaml3, and if xen
4.4 rpms added ocaml4 as a requirement, then all the distro ocaml stuff would break in the xen 4.2 -> xen 4.4 upgrade.. I don’t think we want to do that. pasik jonludlam: so I’d say let’s first build xen 4.4 against ocaml3; and then let’s figure out the SCL stuff so we can properly do xen 4.4 with ocaml4
jonludlam pasik, they shouldn’t be run-time requirements DV used to assemble RHEL libvirt builds for too long, some reflexes persists gwd One thing we might want to talk about
(maybe on the -devel list) is changing the “binary blob” thing in the CentOS build system to make it earier to collaborate with people who don’t have access to the “blob repo” (sorry I don’t know the proper terms for these things)
pasik gwd: lookasides or something gwd DV: I’d much rather learn the easy way, from your experience, than the hard way, from my own. jonludlam pasik, btw, no problem starting with ocaml3 with a view to seeing how ocaml4 might turn out pasik jonludlam: ok lars_kurth Anything else we need to discuss?
DV gwd: TBH the libvirt team use to rebase frequently, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 … because code changes fast and want to minimize backport loads kbsingh gwd: ok, if you start that off, we can hash it out ( the lookaside thing )
gwd Most of the blobs in Xen4CentOS seem to be upstream tarballs. One option would be to have a URL of the upstream, with a local cache to make builds reliable. lars_kurth We have 2 minutes: I would propose to raise loose ends after the meeting on the list kbsingh gwd: i guess people can still checkout and do local things, and the get_sources.sh could be injected into the git repo itself DV gwd: that said being 0.0.2 behind means only 2 months, should be okay pasik gwd: I was able to do custom local rebuilds of CentOS src.rpms; I used the get_sources.sh kbsingh i am guessing there isnt a LTS
sort of version – so we’d need a plan to keep things patched without needing a system update every 2 months gwd pasik: The hard part would be pull requests. kbsingh do we have any other major points on the agenda pasik gwd: true kbsingh gwd: pasik: pull requests on binary data will always be against ( or well, used to be against ) a new srpm kbsingh so we just run the import pasik lars_kurth: I think we should write something about ocaml version gwd I don’t think so — I’ll kick off a discussion on -virt about packages to update gwd And make a roadmap wiki kbsingh but we can also have remote urls in the .package.metadata file – and people can request merges against that jonludlam I believe there’s been some discussion before about the structure of the xen rpms – is that minuted anywhere?
jcpunk ^^+1
DV gwd: my suggestions, use git, cherry pick from upstream into a set of commit bringing what you want on top of your branch, use that as you patch list lars_kurth pasik, jonludlam: no – can I get you to make a proposal on the list kbsingh jcpunk: +1 to what jcpunk looking for documented structure jcpunk of rpms DV gwd: see the libvirt rpms from Fedora or RHEL they should be largely explicit kbsingh this was on the virt list ages ago. we essentially went with the carry-in-spec for the leaf nodes needed at build time. gwd DV: That seems reasonable. jcpunk kbsingh: ah, got it kbsingh i suspect jonludlam is talking about the entire wider scope pasik lars_kurth: yeah sure, jonludlam is probably the expert with ocaml stuff lars_kurth OK: will add action jonludlam right, interested in splitting dom0 rpms from domU, etc kbsingh jonludlam: i dont think we’ve had that conversation at this point. but we should jonludlam ok, perhaps next meeting then?
kbsingh if we dont have any other items, i just want to bring one in – and this is past the scheduled hour, but worth talking about lars_kurth Maybe next time or on list?
jonludlam gotta run to another meeting now gwd DV: I’m fairly new to RPM building: I
take it there’s a step where you explicitly export base..tip as a series of patches?
gwd kbsingh: I’ve got time. kbsingh we have a bit of a problem with el7rc kernel not doing pv out of the blocks gwd That’s not as a guest, right?
pasik kbsingh: only redhat kernel team can do something about that.. kbsingh when i say a bit of a problem
– i mean this is a major train crash kind of problem, given how much of hosting and cloud is pv only pasik gwd: redhat disabled xen pv support for el7 kernel DV gwd: yes you can ask git to give them a name based on commit text, and in the rpm spec you list them in order pasik gwd: (xen hvm is still supported)
kbsingh pasik: right, i dont care about the rhel7 state of play, but we might need to do something in the CentOS ecosystem and own it locally pasik kbsingh: yep, definitely we should
“fix” that for CentOS7
kbsingh gwd: it is.. as a guest, cant run rhel7 as a pv guest. only hvm-pv and hvm ( ofcourse )
kbsingh I will get the git repos in place and the acl’s setup this week for the xen stuff to happen gwd kbsingh: Oh, that’s right. But does it have PVHVM support?
kbsingh and we can maybe target a 4.4
build as a testing/qa process. kbsingh gwd: yes. pvhvm works gwd kbsingh: So are you thinking of having a CentOS guest kernel that supports PV?
pasik yep pasik so probably just a small .config tweak hughesjr gwd: well, we will have a kernel that supports dom0 too at some point DV gwd: git log –pretty=%f -1 your-commit and use that as a base for the filename of the associated patch kbsingh gwd: i dont know – dont want to predecide and havent really spent any time thinking this though – but i do know that we need to ( spend the time, think it through, do something )
kbsingh o, lars_kurth are we calling this meting closed ? ( i am already on the phone waiting for the next one to open )
pasik kbsingh: yes, i think we should have some kernel variant with “fixed” .config gwd Would the PV kernel be basically the same as the Xen4CentOS dom0? Or a stripped-down version? Or were you thinking of taking the upstream RH kernel and re-enabling PV (meaning another separate kernel branch to maintain)?
lars_kurth yes: let’s call it closed pasik gwd: i think it should upstream-el7-kernel with just the .config tweak hughesjr gwd: we can do more than one if we want hughesjr (or need to)
pasik gwd: and any xen pv specific patches, if there’s a need for those ever pasik gwd: so maintenance-wise it would be quite low effort.. hopefully gwd pasik: Well, one would hope… gwd And would that be a change to the main CentOS kernel? Or a separate package that’s included for cloud targets?
kbsingh change to main kernel would need quite a major reason, and a lot of shouting and requests – I
suspect we dont/wont get that initially. kbsingh we could carry it on the install media though… so its available to use right off the bat, post install ( specially if its the same version as the install / main kernel )
gwd That sounds pretty do-able. pasik yep gwd OK — lars_kurth, are you going to send out a meeting report?
lars_kurth gwd: pointing to the actions and appending this log for now