Bug 1078152

Summary:	Add metadata file with version informations about LP and Platform
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Fabian Deutsch <fdeutsch>
Component:	rhev-hypervisor	Assignee:	Fabian Deutsch <fdeutsch>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	3.5.0	CC:	cshao, dfediuck, dougsland, fdeutsch, gklein, gouyang, hadong, huiwa, iheim, leiwang, ycui, yeylon
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	3.5.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:	node
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-09-24 10:34:43 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Node	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1081969
Bug Blocks:	1078154

Description Fabian Deutsch 2014-03-19 09:34:42 UTC

Description of problem:
Currently there is no central source of information to find out what version RHEV or RHEL is used by a RHEV-H build.
To address this problem we should introduce a metadata file which includes - in a condensed form - relevant informations about the targeted RHEV and RHEL versions of a RHEV-H build.

The metadata file should be delivered in the rpm (and not in the iso).

The naming should follow the iso naming, ie:
<isoname>.metadata

The file can basically be an extended version of the /etc/default/version file within the iso. Which is extracted when the rpm is build.
This has the benefit that the "outer" (rpm) file will be equal to the "inner" (within iso) file.

Comment 1 Fabian Deutsch 2014-03-19 09:36:52 UTC

The already existing "version" file (in the rpm) does not contain enough informations.

There also needs to be a bug to track the necessary changes on the RHEV-M side.

Comment 2 Doron Fediuck 2014-03-20 07:47:16 UTC

Fabian,
for completeness please specify here the expected meta file contents.

Comment 3 Fabian Deutsch 2014-03-20 10:47:29 UTC

In addition to the current contents we should add:

ISONAME
  To be flexible on iso name changes within the rpm,
  we can use this indirection to tell RHEV-M about the iso to use, currently:
  rhevh-6.5-20140303.0.el6.iso (or so)

PLATFORM_VERSION
  Major and Minor of the platform, e.g.: 6.5
  We could consider to also include the update: 6.5.3

PLATFORM_RELEASE - and/or - BUILD_DATE
  Release part of the build, aka build date plus number, e.g.: 20140303.0
  The reason for possibly calling it BUILD_DATE is to make the semantics 
  explicit.

LAYERED_VERSION - or - OVIRT_VERSION
  Major and Minor of the layered product, e.g.: 3.2
  We could consider to also include the update: 3.2.6

This should give RHEV-M enough informations to suggest sane upgrade paths based on either platform and/or LP versions.

By using PLATFORM_RELEASE or BUILD_DATE RHEV-M can even be made aware of new updates for old versions (e.g. 3.2.6)

Douglas, do you think these informations are enough?

Comment 4 Douglas Schilling Landgraf 2014-07-10 18:00:50 UTC

(In reply to Fabian Deutsch from comment #3)
> In addition to the current contents we should add:
> 
> ISONAME
>   To be flexible on iso name changes within the rpm,
>   we can use this indirection to tell RHEV-M about the iso to use, currently:
>   rhevh-6.5-20140303.0.el6.iso (or so)
> 
> PLATFORM_VERSION
>   Major and Minor of the platform, e.g.: 6.5
>   We could consider to also include the update: 6.5.3
> 
> PLATFORM_RELEASE - and/or - BUILD_DATE
>   Release part of the build, aka build date plus number, e.g.: 20140303.0
>   The reason for possibly calling it BUILD_DATE is to make the semantics 
>   explicit.
> 
> LAYERED_VERSION - or - OVIRT_VERSION
>   Major and Minor of the layered product, e.g.: 3.2
>   We could consider to also include the update: 3.2.6
> 
> This should give RHEV-M enough informations to suggest sane upgrade paths
> based on either platform and/or LP versions.
> 
> By using PLATFORM_RELEASE or BUILD_DATE RHEV-M can even be made aware of new
> updates for old versions (e.g. 3.2.6)
> 
> Douglas, do you think these informations are enough?

Removing needinfo on me since there is a discussing going on about it.

Comment 5 Fabian Deutsch 2014-09-24 10:34:43 UTC

As mentioned in bug 1081969, all informations are already available, just spread in two different files.