[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Libguestfs] packaging virtio-win (was: Re: [PATCH] v2v: virtio-win: include *.dll too)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:12:41PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:07:03PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:26:10PM +0300, Roman Kagan wrote:
> Having given it some more thought and having discussed that with
> colleagues who do various things with the drivers, like generating
> unattended install helpers or just manually installing drivers into
> guests, I'm now of the opinion that neither libguestfs nor any other
> user of the drivers should look inside the driver files in order to
> match them against the guest OS, because it's hard for programs and
> unrealistic for humans.
> I tend to believe it should be the responsibility of the driver packages
> to lay out the drivers in a directory structure that both humans and
> programs could grok easily and that wouldn't change once established; in
> a sense this would be both an API and a human interface.
> If I were to lay it out I'd group the stuff by guest OS, so that for a
> particular guest a single entity -- a directory tree or a pre-created
> ISO or floppy image -- would contain all that's needed for this guest
> and nothing else.  This would allow separation of concerns, so that
> actors who bring the stuff into the guest wouldn't need to care about
> what's inside, and actors involved with its installation wouldn't need
> to know how to find the right one.

The good news is that this is what we do right now.

> E.g. from this POV the way drivers are stored in RHEL7 virtio-win
> package on the *filesystem* looks OK, the way they are stored in the
> *ISO image* in the same package doesn't.
> As for naming one can stick with what's being used in that virtio-win
> rpm, i.e.
> {amd64,i386}/Win{XP,2003,2008,2008R2,2012,2012R2,7,8,8.1}
> or switch to the names passed to inf2cat in its /os parameter, i.e.
> XP_X86,Server2003_X86,...,8_X64,Server8_X64,6_3_X86,6_3_X64,Server6_3_X64
> (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff547089(v=vs.85).aspx)
> Whatever convention is chosen it needs to be followed thereafter.

Yup - very important that once we decide what the naming convention is
going to be, we stick with it.  Moving drivers around or using ad-hoc
naming schemes causes churn in virt-v2v and probably other projects

> The main problem with this proposal is that I don't know how to
> implement it: there are multiple vendors of virtio-win packages, and,
> for licensing reasons, they don't even share the source code, so it's
> unclear who could own this convention and enforce it on others.

I guess that virt-v2v will have to deal with this with more special

> I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions on how to proceed from that
> and whether it's worth it at all.

Apparently I failed to inspire anybody who can affect the driver
packaging layout :)  Let me try again.

Do I get it right that the way virtio-win is packaged for Fedora and
RHEL is driven by the scripts at


and I should be submitting patches or pull requests to it?

Yes, that's what I use to package the drivers for RHEL.

Or should the layout be determined only by the build machinery at


and I should be direct my submissions that way?

I don't know, but if you work strictly with virtio-win-pkg-scripts it
shouldn't matter.

Or any combination of the above?

Also does anybody know this is done in SUSE?

No idea.

Any help would be appreciated.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]