[lxc-devel] Maybe gotta problem here...

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 14:54 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:30:29PM -0500, Dwight Engen wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:52:22 -0500
> > "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw at WittsEnd.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ok...
> > > 
> > > So I work on a lot of RHEL / CentOS / Fedora / SL / NST stuff.
> > > Basically they're all rpm based systems.  I generally test through the
> > > rpms.  i.e. I don't build from scratch, scratch, I rebuild rpm's for
> > > myself and install from yum each time.  It actually makes things
> > > easier and, occasionally, I spot something that I realize is wrong
> > > that wouldn't show up otherwise...
> > > 
> > > I've been puzzling about something and I think now that the
> > > lxc.spec.in file needs some loving care and updating.  What I noticed
> > > was that a number of posts refer to "lxc-ls --fancy" but my version
> > > of lxc-ls is a bash script and doesn't have that option.  That's from
> > > src/lxc/legacy. There's the python script lxc-ls but that's not
> > > getting installed in the rpm by the spec file.  Installing by hand,
> > > the Python lxc-ls gives me "python: lxc module not found" or some
> > > such.
> > 
> > Hi Mike, I also almost always just build an rpm and install it. The python
> > stuff doesn't get built on Oracle Linux 6.5 (so I suspect it will be
> > the same for RHEL, CentOS, SL etc., but not Fedora) because there is no
> > python3 available, which is why the legacy lxc-ls gets included there.
> > I'd think configure would get the newer stuff built on Fedora, but maybe
> > the .spec isn't packaging it?

> Up until this morning the python3 binding required an explicit
> --enable-python passed to configure. I only fixed that specific issue
> last night and have it now to auto-detection instead.

Uh...  So, if I understand this correctly, we're going to have
functionality shifting depending on the presence of Python3?  That ain't
good.  That means the same package built on Fedora 19 with Python3
installed is going to be materially different (command line behavior)
than if it's built on CentOS6, which, like Oracle, has no Python3?
Sigh...  Not exactly the answer I wanted to hear.

> > > Crap.  That means the spec file has not been updated for all this API
> > > stuff that's been going on and I'm not sure what needs to be updated
> > > in there.  I'd like to look at making those changes and bringing that
> > > up to date ASAP before we go Beta (priority over a couple of other
> > > putter projects) but I'd like some guidance over what's needed.  I
> > > fear it's more than just getting lxc-ls to the latest and greatest...
> > 
> > I think it does make sense to update the .spec file and split out
> > python into a separate pkg like the lua stuff is.
> >  
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > lxc-devel mailing list
> > lxc-devel at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lxc-devel mailing list
> lxc-devel at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel

-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0x674627FF        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-devel/attachments/20131216/088678b4/attachment-0001.pgp>