FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-07-2011, 02:50 PM
John Hodrien
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 15:39 +0100, John Hodrien wrote:
>
>> If that's all you're doing, there's no pain in having the patches.
>> But what happens if you don't want *all* the patches?
>
> A heavily patched programme is a messy compromise for system options
> which could be handled by run-time configuration options ?

But without patches, you're either bound to an old version, or have to track
upstream exactly. What if you don't want to?

jh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 02:53 PM
Always Learning
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 15:50 +0100, John Hodrien wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > A heavily patched programme is a messy compromise for system options
> > which could be handled by run-time configuration options ?

> But without patches, you're either bound to an old version, or have to track
> upstream exactly. What if you don't want to?

So, if I understand the situation, patches create flexibility in
run-time options not available in run-time configuration files ?

Paul.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 02:58 PM
John Hodrien
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 15:50 +0100, John Hodrien wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote:
>>>
>>> A heavily patched programme is a messy compromise for system options
>>> which could be handled by run-time configuration options ?
>
>> But without patches, you're either bound to an old version, or have to track
>> upstream exactly. What if you don't want to?
>
> So, if I understand the situation, patches create flexibility in
> run-time options not available in run-time configuration files ?

Not at all. What's your solution where the old product does things one way,
the new product does things another way, and there's no config option to flick
between the two? Patch in a config option?

jh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 03:17 PM
William Hooper
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Always Learning <centos@u61.u22.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 09:51 -0400, Digimer wrote:
>
>> Red Hat is a business, and made a simple business decision. Maintaining
>> Xen support would have meant maintaining a very large set of patches.
>> They made the decision that the effort (and money) needed to maintain
>> Xen outside of the mainline kernel was not worth it.
>
> Perhaps a silly question, but why maintain patches ? Why not compile a
> new version and discard all the patches ? Patches are a messy manner to
> maintain programmes.

For the same reason that Red Hat uses patches to back port security
updates and functionality into the kernel, httpd, and most of the
other packages in RHEL. Introducing a version change may add/remove
functionality, may alter configuration options, may be lest tested,
etc. The point of using an "enterprise" distro is that change is kept
to a minimum.

--
William Hooper
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 03:31 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, William Hooper <whooperhsd@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Perhaps a silly question, but why maintain patches ? Why not compile a
>> new version and discard all the patches ? Patches are a messy manner to
>> maintain programmes.
>
> For the same reason that Red Hat uses patches to back port security
> updates and functionality into the kernel, httpd, and most of the
> other packages in RHEL.

I thought that was no longer true for the 6.x kernel.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 03:41 PM
William Hooper
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, William Hooper <whooperhsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps a silly question, but why maintain patches ? Why not compile a
>>> new version and discard all the patches ? Patches are a messy manner to
>>> maintain programmes.
>>
>> For the same reason that Red Hat uses patches to back port security
>> updates and functionality into the kernel, httpd, and most of the
>> other packages in RHEL.
>
> I thought that was no longer true for the 6.x kernel.

The difference is that the kernel tarball provided in the SRPM is a
Red Hat kernel, not a vanilla kernel. Just because the patches are
not in the SRPM doesn't mean they don't exist.

--
William Hooper
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-07-2011, 09:18 PM
Rajagopal Swaminathan
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

Greetings,

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:11 PM, William Hooper <whooperhsd@gmail.com> wrote:

I tried RHEV once for about a fortnight with Openfiler as storage.

I started to hate openfiler ever since they switched over from centos
as a base to some other distro. Especially makes life difficult when
handlung NTFS partition (by design or by coertion).

It has some sort of persistence mechanism in place for storage which I
did not get an opportunity to wrap my head around further as I dont
have the resources. Especially in storage.

RHEV is is a beast in itself.

Let us wait till RHEV 4.0 whivh has JBOSS as the base for the management tools.

above imho.

--
Regards,

Rajagopal
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-08-2011, 03:23 AM
Steve Walsh
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On 09/08/2011 12:53 AM, Always Learning wrote:
> So, if I understand the situation, patches create flexibility in
> run-time options not available in run-time configuration files ?

Someone submits a patch as a quick-fix to a problem they've seen, which
gets accepted and inserted into the package. Down the track, a better
fix is submitted and accepted. All you need to do is pull the first
patch file and insert the second one, update your spec file then rebuild
the RPM.

If everything was all squashed up into one great big code base, you need
to hunt around to find the change that was made, pull it out, make sure
you code builds, then insert the new change, make sure it builds, etc.
revise and repeat until you have something you can ship.

First method takes about 2-3 minutes.

Second method takes however long it takes, and may introduce other
errors or issues.

The first method also means that if the patch changes something you need
to adhere for legal reasons (like, say, branding), you just pull that
patch from the spec file and it's a trivial exercise.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-08-2011, 03:34 AM
Always Learning
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:23 +1000, Steve Walsh wrote:

> Someone submits a patch as a quick-fix to a problem they've seen, which
> gets accepted and inserted into the package. Down the track, a better
> fix is submitted and accepted. All you need to do is pull the first
> patch file and insert the second one, update your spec file then rebuild
> the RPM.

............

Thank you for the explanation.

Paul.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-09-2011, 12:00 AM
Ross Walker
 
Default Emulate RHEV On CentOS - A note on Xen v. KVM

On Sep 7, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Always Learning <centos@u61.u22.net> wrote:

> Perhaps a silly question, but why maintain patches ? Why not compile a
> new version and discard all the patches ? Patches are a messy manner to
> maintain programmes.

RHEL needs to keep the same ABI (application binary interface) for both kernel and user programs so third party VARs and software developer's binary packages will continue to be compatible during the lifetime of a release (5.X or 6.X).

In order to do that RH keeps (or makes all attempts to) the same versions of the software during the release while back porting security updates and must-have features that don't change these ABIs.

These back ported updates are the patches that are applied to the base package.

That should make it crystal clear.

-Ross



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org