Bug 1391741 - RHV-H OS version information in the RHV-M GUI doesn't appear to be complete.
Summary: RHV-H OS version information in the RHV-M GUI doesn't appear to be complete.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1368364
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rhev-hypervisor-ng
Version: 4.0.3
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ovirt-4.2.0
: ---
Assignee: Yuval Turgeman
QA Contact: dguo
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-11-03 22:12 UTC by Bimal Chollera
Modified: 2017-02-28 16:11 UTC (History)
21 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-02-28 16:11:34 UTC
oVirt Team: Node
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1368364 0 medium CLOSED Reported Node version and release are incorrect - RHEL version should be reported 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1368364

Description Bimal Chollera 2016-11-03 22:12:44 UTC 
Description of problem:

In the RHV-M GUI, the RHV-H OS Version information doesn't appear to report the correct version.

RHV-M GUI (Hosts -> Software) shows:

~~~
OS Version:  RHEL - 4.0 - 0.20.el7
OS Description:  Red Hat Virtualization Host 4.0
~~~

Checking on the host, shows rhvh-4.0-0.20160714.3+1

~~~
# imgbase w
[INFO] You are on rhvh-4.0-0.20160714.3+1
~~~


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

RHV-M 4.0.3-0.1.el7ev
vdsm-4.18.6-1.el7ev

How reproducible:
100% 

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Add a RHV-H host to RHV-M
2.  Check the OS version in RHV-M GUI (Hosts -> Software)
3.

Actual results:

RHV-M doesn't report the complete rhv-h version.

Expected results:

RHV-M should report the complete rhv-h version.

Additional info:
Comment 1 Fabian Deutsch 2016-11-22 10:18:25 UTC 
We can include the image NVR in the os-release PRETTY_NAME.
These informations should be available once we post-process the image.

The only drawback is a longer PRETTY_NAME string.
Comment 2 Ryan Barry 2017-02-03 15:30:57 UTC 
Adding a longer PRETTY_NAME will tie into plymouth as well, potentially leaving a very long string.

Let's tie this into https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368364
Comment 3 Douglas Schilling Landgraf 2017-02-28 16:11:34 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1368364 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.