Open Stack

On 02/09/2017 05:51 PM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matt Riedemann" <mriedemos at gmail.com>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>,
>> openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 6:29:22 PM
>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Next minimum libvirt version
>>
>> Since danpb hasn't been around I've sort of forgotten about this, but we
>> should talk about bumping the minimum required libvirt version in nova.
>>
>> Currently it's 1.2.1 and the next was set to 1.2.9.
>>
>> On master we're gating on ubuntu 14.04 which has libvirt 1.3.1 (14.04
>> had 1.2.2).
>>
>> If we move to require 1.2.9 that effectively kills 14.04 support for
>> devstack + libvirt on master, which is probably OK.
> 
> This would also kill off RHEL/CentOS 7.1 support but that would also seem to be OK at this point.

Our distro support policy is to at minimum support latest Ubuntu LTS and
latest RHEL. I think given that it's more than fine for us to drop
support for 14.04 and RHEL 7.1 in master.

>> There is also the distro support wiki [1] which hasn't been updated in
>> awhile.
> 
> I've added the details I have for Fedora 25 and RHEL/CentOS 7.3, TL;DR:
> 
> Fedora 25:
> Libvirt 2.2.0
> Qemu 2.7.1
> Libguestfs 1.34.3
> 
> RHEL 7.3:
> Libvirt 2.0.0
> Qemu 2.6.0
> Libguestfs 1.32.7


So I think, sadly, that means:
Libvirt: 1.3.1
Qemu: 2.5
Libguestfs: 1.32.3

Which are all the Xenial versions and what we're testing in the gate
(and older than the RHEL or Fedora versions)

FWIW, Yakkety has:
Libvirt: 2.1.0
Qemu: 2.6.1
Libguestfs: 1.32.7

so progress does seem to be being made there.

> 
>> I'm wondering if 1.2.9 is a safe move for the next required minimum
>> version and if so, does anyone have ideas on the next required version
>> after that?
>>
>> I'm hoping some of the Red Hat people can chime in here.
> 
> I just play someone intelligent on TV so adding Sahid and Vladik who might be better placed to comment in Dan's absence.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
>