6:29 p.m.
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.8...)
> >
> > 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
> too.
>
> > 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
> rules.
>
> > 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
https://github.com/crobinso/virtio-win-pkg-scripts
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
https://github.com/YanVugenfirer/kvm-guest-drivers-windows
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.
Thanks,
Roman.
-Jeff