incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Review Request: maven kvm hypervisor plugin build without -Dnonoss
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:36:46 GMT
I'll add a switch to enable and disable kvm.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 3:25 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Review Request: maven kvm hypervisor plugin build without
> -Dnonoss
> 
> You can disable it in the default build, but still allow it in waf
> build, correct? Or at the very least it seems that the RPM build
> should ship building the agent with a message saying 'do x y z to
> enable KVM first' or some such.
> 
> Nobody is going to build an RPM and not want KVM support, it's not
> like the citrix or Vmware resources can be used with RHEL/CentOS.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/06/2012 08:05 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Trying to get a working RPM build of 4.0 going... I assume my
> latest
> >>> issue is related to this.  "class not found:
> >>> com.cloud.hypervisor.kvm.resource.LibvirtComputingResource", if
> >>> someone is building RPMs isn't it safe to assume they want the
> >>> kvm/libvirt pieces?  What was Wido's fix? I don't see this patch
> >>> applied to maven-waf, just 623f199b0378683e6f5f0c2b2b5c692b6504d16f
> as
> >>> latest.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, I completely missed this review!
> >>
> >> The legal issue with KVM was approved like Elan posted, see LEGAL-
> 144 as I
> >> mentioned in the commit message.
> >>
> >> I saw Elan's post on the ml, checked out the legal status and
> enabled KVM
> >> again since we were allowed to do so :)
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >
> >
> > I am not sure that this is my understanding.
> > Doesn't the 'default build option' have to miss KVM because it
> > currently doesn't have a license that permits it? Or did we decide to
> > identify this as a system dependency?
> >
> > I know we got blessing to produce KVM-inclusive convenience binaries,
> > but point 1 of the accepted proposal in LEGAL-144 says:
> >  Disable KVM support in the default build, as per policy.
> >
> > --David

Mime
View raw message