14:03:03 <gwd-laptop> #startmeeting Virt SIG
14:03:03 <centbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 10 14:03:03 2015 UTC.  The chair is gwd-laptop. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:03:03 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:03:12 <gwd-laptop> #chair gwd-laptop
14:03:12 <centbot> Current chairs: gwd-laptop
14:03:23 <gwd-laptop> Uum, is there a reason to add everyone else as chairs?
14:03:40 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: no, if you're going to write all the #info :-)
14:04:05 <gwd-laptop> lsm5: ping?
14:05:12 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: pong
14:05:34 <lsm5> aaah virt-sig meeting :)
14:05:41 <gwd-laptop> OK, well let's get started.
14:05:47 <gwd-laptop> #topic Xen update
14:06:15 <gwd-laptop> The 4.4.1 release seems to have done pretty well -- made a bit of noise.
14:06:53 <gwd-laptop> Next two things on the list are 1) try it in CentOS 7 and 2) Update the kernel (not sure which order).
14:07:19 <gwd-laptop> But I won't have much time to work on it until March.
14:07:32 <gwd-laptop> I think that's it for the Xen update side; any questions / comments?
14:08:05 <sbonazzo> nothing on my side
14:08:37 <gwd-laptop> OK, shall we have an update on docker?
14:08:41 <lsm5> yup
14:08:41 <gwd-laptop> #topic Docker update
14:08:50 <gwd-laptop> #chair lsm5
14:08:50 <centbot> Current chairs: gwd-laptop lsm5
14:08:53 <lsm5> http://wiki.centos.org/Cloud/Docker ... ready to go out
14:09:13 <lsm5> there was trouble with registry ... which is being fixed ..that'll be ready to go out soon too
14:09:35 <lsm5> i'm hoping we can announce the docker part and call it a release hopefully
14:09:55 <lsm5> also, will email the virt-sig list calling for wider testing of kubernetes and etcd packages
14:10:12 <lsm5> that's it from the docker side for now
14:10:18 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: back to you
14:10:23 <gwd-laptop> #action lsm5 to email virt-sig calling for wider testing of kubernetes and etcd packages
14:11:07 <gwd-laptop> lsm5 so is there a plan to have the packages in virt7-testing signed and put in a production repo somewhere?
14:11:26 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: that I think will be handled by kbsingh
14:11:40 * sbonazzo interested on how the publishing works
14:12:02 <gwd-laptop> Sure, as I understand it he is the only one who is actually able to do that. :-)
14:12:19 <kbsingh> woo!
14:12:21 <gwd-laptop> But I mean, at the moment "production" Xen stuff goes in a repo called "xen4"
14:12:41 <gwd-laptop> kbsingh: Ah, you are here!  Good.
14:13:05 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: ahh yup, kbsingh did send me some links about how gluster folks set things up ..gotta check that format out
14:13:07 <gwd-laptop> Are we going to have a virt7 repo on mirrors.centos.org?  And when are we going to push that?
14:13:30 <kbsingh> so
14:13:46 <kbsingh> i think that is still open. do we want per role or per sog
14:14:34 <kbsingh> storage sog is going to do a common and then role spexific under that
14:15:55 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: something like virt7 virt7-ovirt virt7-xen virt7-docker?
14:16:09 <gwd-laptop> So lsm5 doesn't mind sharing the kernel with Xen.
14:16:10 <dcaro|mtg> I suppose that it depends on who you want to manage what
14:16:45 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: shouldn't be a problem I think, though it might be great to have a trial run though :)
14:16:48 <kbsingh> gwd-laptop: pretty sure that lots of docker users will want the distro kernel
14:16:51 <gwd-laptop> But, the question is -- if we *did* run into trouble, how hard would it be to move from a "one common repo" to "individual repo" setup?
14:17:09 <gwd-laptop> distro kernel> that makes sense to me.
14:17:45 <gwd-laptop> OK, something like sbonazzo suggested then?
14:17:54 <lsm5> kbsingh: gwd-laptop i'm guessing there are people who want to run both xen and docker at the same time..so better to check for docker on xen kernel too (??)
14:18:27 <gwd-laptop> lsm5: But will those people want to run docker in dom0, or in VMs?
14:18:28 <kbsingh> fepends on where and how overlayfs goes
14:18:38 <kbsingh> i hope domUs
14:18:42 <lsm5> hmm
14:19:24 * lsm5 will leave that to gwd-laptop and kbsingh :)
14:19:44 <kbsingh> we should thrash this out onlist
14:20:08 <gwd-laptop> #agreed Discuss repo setup on the centos-virt list
14:20:18 <gwd-laptop> OK, oVirt status?
14:20:32 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop:  Built qemu-kvm-rhev for both el6 and el7 in koji:
14:20:43 <gwd-laptop> #topic oVirt status
14:20:46 <gwd-laptop> #chair sbonazzo
14:20:46 <centbot> Current chairs: gwd-laptop lsm5 sbonazzo
14:20:47 <kbsingh> can we not call it rhev please
14:21:05 <kbsingh> unless you spoke to redhat legal and fot trademark acceptance
14:21:08 <sbonazzo> #info Built qemu-kvm-rhev for both el6 and el7 in koji:
14:21:17 <sbonazzo> #link https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6916
14:21:19 <gwd-laptop> What's the package name called in CentOS?
14:21:25 <sbonazzo> #link https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6922
14:22:04 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: I raised the issue when we built it on ovirt jenkins and I've been told to not change it
14:22:17 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: but I can double check it again
14:22:35 <kbsingh> why not change it ?
14:22:55 <sbonazzo> #action sbonazzo to double check with redhat legal for trademark acceptance on qemu-kvm-rhev
14:23:20 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: not sure. I asked for qemu-kvm-ovirt and have been told to not change it
14:23:21 <dcaro|mtg> I vote for changing it (if that counts xd)
14:23:39 <gwd-laptop> Well, what is it called in CentOS?
14:23:48 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: qemu-kvm
14:24:21 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: basically, I just took qemu-kvm src.rpm from centos and rebuilt it with -D rhev=1
14:24:23 <gwd-laptop> OK -- unless there's a good reason to call it "rhev", I think we should leave the package name the same.
14:24:46 <gwd-laptop> What does rhev stand for here?
14:25:03 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization
14:25:07 <dcaro|mtg> redhat enterprise virtualization
14:25:45 <gwd-laptop> ...and that causes the snapshotting to be enabled? (I think that's what you wanted, right?)
14:25:52 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: yes
14:26:13 <kbsingh> why does it need to be called ovirt or rhev ?
14:26:16 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: issue with keeping the name unchanged is that it also has the same version
14:26:22 <kbsingh> the functionality it delivers has nothing to do with either ovirt or rhev
14:26:42 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: it may be qemu-kvm-enhanced if you prefer+
14:27:00 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: still need to check about package renaming
14:27:17 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: as I said, I just used -D rhev=1 on an existing src.rpm
14:27:23 <gwd-laptop> Or a RHEL:RHEV :: CentOS: ?
14:27:54 <mhabrnal> hi, i would like to ask you, what version of the MantisBT are you using for CentOS Bug Tracker at the moment?
14:28:17 <gwd-laptop> Well is the main point of this to be a RHEV clone (as the normal package is an RHEL clone), or is the plan at some point to branch out and add other features?
14:28:26 <kbsingh> ok, so lets work out the naming thing. what about the rest of ovrt - whats the status on that
14:28:46 <dcaro|mtg> It had the rhev/ovirt suffix because it was a patched pakage used inside the project, that it will not be anymore
14:28:49 <kbsingh> gwd-laptop: all this does is turns on snapshot support, otherwise its the same qemu in the distro
14:28:56 <sbonazzo> #info Re-based oVirt Live on top of EL7
14:29:04 <sbonazzo> #link Git repo available: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-live.git;a=tree;f=centos-7;h=571a63ff6cc593def54a6b66fabb7d19837de9cf;hb=HEAD
14:29:16 <kbsingh> how about ovirt rpms in the SIG ?
14:29:30 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: Need to clarify packaging  policy: we have in ovirt repository packages like ovirt-engine-jboss-as  which use binary build of jboss-as-7. Have CentOS a policy equal to  Fedora? Or are packages wrapping binary builds allowed?
14:29:44 <gwd-laptop> kbsingh: Sure, but the naming sort of tells people what the future intention will be.
14:30:23 <kbsingh> gwd-laptop: once we have the kvm upstream in the virt-sg, we dont / wont need this qemu anymore - the upstream qemu has a bunch more stuff already enabled ( ie. all the features! )
14:30:33 <gwd-laptop> kbsingh: If we call it qemu-kvm-cev, then people will expect it to be a clone of rhev.  If we call it qemu-kvm-vsig (or something) people will know it's a virt sig extension (which may or may not be the same as rhev)
14:31:16 <kbsingh> sbonazzo: whats the challenge with the jboss rpms ?
14:31:49 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: building the whole jboss-as as it was packaged in fedora 19 is sort of a huge work
14:32:08 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: and we lack people to properly maintain it
14:32:43 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: also, we have ovirt-engine package which is using maven build, but it won't work within koji
14:32:49 <gwd-laptop> Is the main issue GPL compliance -- if we distribute a binary, we need to distribute source such that people can rebuild it, right?
14:33:04 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: since it's not xmvn / maven-local ready
14:33:06 <kbsingh> koji handles maven
14:33:11 <kbsingh> humm
14:33:35 <kbsingh> so i might be missing sometihng - but isnt the ovirt in virt sig supposed to be ovirt in the virt sig ?
14:33:37 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: it may use mead but not sure it's available in centos build system
14:33:45 <kbsingh> i seem to recall the primary aim being to deliver ovirt from the sig
14:34:17 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: yes... and in order to reach the goal we need to change things... I need to understand how much we need to change things
14:34:37 <kbsingh> ok, so whats the way forward on that ?
14:35:17 <bleve> kbsingh: any news about closing repos properly?
14:35:21 <kbsingh> gwd-laptop: as long as we have rpms and can populate the builroots in koji - we should be all set.
14:35:23 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: I guess we can try to get xmvn / maven local working for el7 somehow.
14:35:36 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: but I think that el6 support won't be so easy
14:35:59 <gwd-laptop> I don't think c6 support will be critical.
14:36:16 <kbsingh> yeah me neither, but given that ovirt does not actually itself work on el7 - what else is there
14:36:33 <kbsingh> but i also find it strange that ovirt is unable to build in an open environment
14:36:42 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: well, ovirt sort of work with el7 starting from 3.5.1
14:37:35 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: but for properly building within koji it will take time. obviously help for packaging it is welcome :-)
14:38:08 <kbsingh> right, thats btween you and your commnuity
14:38:16 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: yep
14:38:27 <kbsingh> my concern is mostly making sure we actually do something
14:38:46 <kbsingh> have you spoken with the jboss folks about rpms ?
14:38:48 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: I can start providing rpms for the hypervisor
14:39:06 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: vdsm and its dependencies should be all ready to build in koji
14:39:10 <kbsingh> hypervisor ? i thought that was qemu or xen
14:39:19 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: sorry, host side
14:39:37 <kbsingh> what might help, everyone, is if you can do a complete review top to bottom
14:39:38 <pasik> hey
14:39:45 <kbsingh> and then workout back from there as to what the challenges might be
14:39:59 <kbsingh> I suspect most people wont / dont quite get the entire scope and components of ovirt
14:40:31 <kbsingh> and then from there if you identify challenges, others might be willing to help remove some of them ( eg. if we need someting specific on the builders side )
14:40:47 <gwd-laptop> #action sbonazzo Do a review of what it would take to get oVirt packages in C7
14:41:00 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: ok
14:41:02 <gwd-laptop> (And post it to the list)
14:41:08 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: :-)
14:41:18 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: and maybe in the wiki
14:41:39 <gwd-laptop> sbonazzo: You want to kick off an e-mail about the qemu-kvm naming on the list too?  Or have we come to agreement on that?
14:42:01 <gwd-laptop> pasik: hey
14:42:23 <dcaro|mtg> gwd-laptop: is it a blocker on getting the package included?
14:42:48 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: no agreement on that if I understood correctly
14:42:50 <gwd-laptop> dcaro: Um, yes, we dont' want to be changing the name of the package.
14:43:24 <dcaro|mtg> gwd-laptop: sbonazzo then we should state is as blocker when asking in the ovirt list
14:43:26 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: I'll raise the issue on RH side and then when I have a clear response will follow up on mailing list
14:43:34 <sbonazzo> dcaro|mtg: yep
14:43:50 <gwd-laptop> I think I'm in favor of just calling it qemu-kvm, and saying if you enable the oVirt Virt SIG repo, you're getting the oVirt Virt SIG qemu-kvm (with whatever features we deem fit to enable)
14:44:10 <gwd-laptop> "We" being you of course. ;-)
14:44:30 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: following kbsingh thinking, maybe better to focus on getting upstream libvirt/qemu latest version
14:44:59 <gwd-laptop> sbonazzo: That works for me too. :-)
14:45:22 <kbsingh> sbonazzo: thats ~ 8 months out
14:45:35 <gwd-laptop> So is that an agreement, or shall we continue to discuss this?
14:45:47 <gwd-laptop> (On the list or in subsequent meetings, that is?)
14:45:48 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: do you mean it will take ~8 months?
14:46:03 <kbsingh> if someone calls a vote, I'd +q calling it qemu-kvm ( and using a disttag to show difference )
14:46:21 <kbsingh> sbonazzo: yeah, were about 8 months away from starting with qemu-kvm rolling into the SIG
14:46:36 <lsm5> gwd-laptop: kbsingh i'll be out for a couple of hours, anything you need from my side immediately?
14:46:40 <kbsingh> that group ( out of brno ) has pretty much said they cant schedule in any time before then
14:46:57 <kbsingh> lsm5: do we need a centos-release-<something> for the docker bits ?
14:46:57 <sbonazzo> kbsingh: ok thanks for the hint
14:47:08 <gwd-laptop> lsm5: Nothing from me.
14:47:29 <kbsingh> lsm5: i noticed your wiki page had the repo directly, if that is fine for now, lets just go with that and maybe do a -release package later
14:47:34 <kbsingh> other than that, nothing from me :D
14:47:35 <lsm5> kbsingh: sorry, what's the purpose for centos-release- ..? is it a repo?
14:47:37 <sbonazzo> ok, that should be all for ovirt side
14:47:40 <lsm5> aah ok
14:47:55 <lsm5> kbsingh: sounds good
14:47:59 <lsm5> later then o/
14:48:15 <sbonazzo> dcaro|mtg: anything to add?
14:48:34 <dcaro|mtg> nop
14:49:09 <gwd-laptop> OK, so what have we agreed and what are the action items wrt oVirt?
14:50:06 <sbonazzo> gwd-laptop: check about naming of qemu-kvm for ovirt / virt sig and eventually sync with qemu / libvirt people for using upstream version in ~8 months
14:50:13 <gwd-laptop> kbsingh: I didn't follow the qemu-kvm thing.  What team is planning on doing what when why?
14:51:04 <kbsingh> gwd-laptop: couple of people offered to try and help build upstream qemu in centos
14:51:18 <kbsingh> finger memory ... typed in qemu-kvm, its just 'qemu'
14:51:43 <kbsingh> one of the builds that comes from there is qemu-kvm, i guess it should be eas to get a qemu-xen out of it as well :)
14:52:04 <gwd-laptop> Ah, ok.  And this is a team at RedHat...?
14:53:14 <kbsingh> one of the guys is
14:53:23 <kbsingh> the other person is someone at linaro i believe
14:53:41 <gwd-laptop> #info There's a team that have volunteered to build upstream qemu for CentOS, but will start in about 8 months
14:53:42 <kbsingh> the driver for conversation came from needing/ wanting a latest/greatest aarch64 capable qemu
14:54:22 <gwd-laptop> OK, anything else then?
14:54:35 <kbsingh> not from me.
14:55:45 <sbonazzo> not from me.
14:55:58 <gwd-laptop> Great, thanks everyone1
14:56:04 <gwd-laptop> #endmeeting