Re: [BUG?] Wrong RC reported during 'make install'

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 14/02/2025 7:15 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.02.2025 20:09, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.02.2025 01:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2025 9:52 pm, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the installation of Xen on an ARM server machine from the source code,
>>>>>> I found that the wrong release candidate (rc) is being used:
>>>>>>   $ make install  
>>>>>>     install -m0644 -p xen //boot/xen-4.20-rc  
>>>>>>     install: cannot remove ‘//boot/xen-4.20-rc’: Permission denied  
>>>>>>     make[1]: *** [Makefile:507: _install] Error 1
>>>>>> My expectation is that it should be xen-4.20-rc4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if this behavior is intentional or if users are expected to set
>>>>>> the XEN_VENDORVERSION variable manually to ensure the correct release
>>>>>> candidate number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, we should set the proper release candidate number after
>>>>>> "xen-4.20-rc" automatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on how to resolve this issue?
>>>>> Hi Oleksii,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a quick test and I see exactly the same on x86 as well. This patch
>>>>> fixes it, but then it would need someone to update the RC number in
>>>>> xen/Makefile every time a new RC is made.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> xen: add RC version number to xen filename
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com>
>>>> This is a direct consequence of the request to keep XEN_EXTRAVERSION at
>>>> "-rc" throughout the release cycle.
>>>>
>>>> I'm having to manually edit that simply to create the tarballs
>>>> correctly, which in turn means that the tarball isn't a byte-for-byte
>>>> identical `git archive` of the tag it purports to be.
>>> Just for my understanding - may I ask why this editing is necessary?
>>> Other release technicians never mentioned the (indeed undesirable)
>>> need to do so.
>> This is not an answer to Jan's question, more me highlighting
>> priorities.
>>
>> While having the appropriate RC version in the Xen name during the RC
>> phase of the release process would be nice, I do not believe it is
>> mandatory. We do need it in the official release tarballs though.

Release tarballs are fine, because they are always tagged on a commit
editing the micro version in XEN_EXTRAVERSION.

It's only RC tarballs that go wrong.

>>
>> So the most important consideration for me is making the release
>> technician's job easier and less error-prone. Therefore, I believe we
>> should follow Andrew and Julien's recommendation on this.
>>
>> Andrew, just to be clear, are you recommending to go with a patch
>> similar to the one I posted, and then update the XEN_VENDORVERSION
>> with a new commit every time there is a new RC? Or are you suggesting
>> something else? I wasn't certain reading your reply.
> Just one point here: I don't think we ought to be playing with
> XEN_VENDORVERSION. If we switch, we ought to switch back to how it
> was long ago - the RC number being part of XEN_EXTRAVERSION.
> XEN_VENDORVERSION really should be left to vendors.

Hopefully the other email is clear and covers everything, but tl;dr, I
suggest we do edit XEN_EXTRAVERSION (and not XEN_VENDORVERSION) for each
RC tarball.

~Andrew