Now that I re-read the patch. Shouldn't the version checking need to be converted into a sanity check?
Miguel Ángel Ajo On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:51, Kevin Benton wrote: > Thanks for the insight. > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Miguel Ángel Ajo <majop...@redhat.com > (mailto:majop...@redhat.com)> wrote: > > Correct, that’s the problem, what Kevin said should be the ideal case, but > > distros have > > proven to fail satisfying this kind of requirements earlier. > > > > So at least a warning to the user may be good to have IMHO. > > > > Miguel Ángel Ajo > > > > > > On Thursday, 8 de January de 2015 at 12:36, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > > > > The problem is probably due to the fact that some operators may run > > > neutron from git and manage their dependencies in some other way; or > > > distributions may suck sometimes, so packagers may miss the release note > > > and fail to upgrade dnsmasq; or distributions may have their specific > > > concerns on upgrading dnsmasq version, and would just backport the needed > > > fix to their 'claimed to 2.66' dnsmasq (common story in Red Hat world). > > > > > > On 01/08/2015 05:25 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > > > > If the new requirement is expressed in the neutron packages for the > > > > distro, wouldn't it be transparent to the operators? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com > > > > (mailto:mest...@mestery.com)> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com > > > > > (mailto:ihrac...@redhat.com)> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I've found out that dnsmasq < 2.67 does not work properly for IPv6 > > > > > > clients when it comes to MAC address matching (it fails to match, > > > > > > and so clients get 'no addresses available' response). I've > > > > > > requested version bump to 2.67 in: > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/145482 > > > > > > > > > > > Good catch, thanks for finding this Ihar! > > > > > > > > > > > Now, since we've already released Juno with IPv6 DHCP stateful > > > > > > support, and DHCP agent still has minimal version set to 2.63 > > > > > > there, we have a dilemma on how to manage it from stable > > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, we should communicate the revealed version dependency to > > > > > > deployers via next release notes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we also backport the minimal version bump to Juno? This will > > > > > > result in DHCP agent failing to start in case packagers don't bump > > > > > > dnsmasq version with the next Juno release. If we don't bump the > > > > > > version, we may leave deployers uninformed about the fact that > > > > > > their IPv6 stateful instances won't get any IPv6 address assigned. > > > > > > > > > > > > An alternative is to add a special check just for Juno that would > > > > > > WARN administrators instead of failing to start DHCP agent. > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think the WARN may be the best route to go. Backporting > > > > > a change which bumps the required dnsmasq version seems like it may > > > > > be harder for operators to handle. > > > > > > > > > > Kyle > > > > > > > > > > > /Ihar > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > > > > (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > > > (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Kevin Benton > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing > > > > list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > > (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Kevin Benton > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org (mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org) > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
