Building from master branch - is that "latest" channel?

  • Hi,
    Just wanted to quickly check if building from master gives the "latest" or "stable" channel build. Also, if it is the latest, if I wanted to build from stable, which branch would I use? It wasn't imeddiately apparent from branch names, unless I missed it.

  • I could be wrong, but I believe these new "channels" only apply to the pre-built XOA appliance.

  • XCP-ng Team

    @Pechkin000 update channels only apply to Xen Orchestra virtual Appliance (XOA). There is no stable branch using it from the sources (nor QA).

  • Banned

    You're RedHat. I'm CentOS. RedHat provides us with all their updates in a non-obfuscated way. They got in trouble for not doing that originally. I think you need to rethink not providing the updates in a non-obfuscated way.

    All devs and companies using gpl software are required by law to do this. The compiled version of xoa should be the same source as the latest stable version of the appliance with no obfuscation.

  • @mropen The source code is openly available via Github with the exception of the XOA updater mechanism, and you can build your own VM without any restrictions or limitations.

    AFAIK, there isn't anything in the GPL that would prevent the developer from releasing an appliance, based on the original source code, which offers additional features / options, QA testing, etc.

  • Banned

    @Danp The question is, is the compiled version of the master branch identical to the xoa appliance with all latest patches applied. If not, they can expect legal troubles. They really shouldn't play around with unclear language. It's either identical to the xoa appliance fully patched or it isn't.

    When I get a copy of CentOS and I update it it, I know it's identical to RedHat except for branding. I know it's a fully patched equal to Redhat's latest patched OS.

    The Xen Orchestra team should tread lightly trying to use open source tools which they've built everything from and scaring users into buying their products through obfuscation in language.

    Compiling the master branch is either equal to and just as safe as the latest patched xen orchestra appliance or it's not. If it's not, that's a problem.

  • @mropen said in Building from master branch - is that "latest" channel?:

    The question is, is the compiled version of the master branch identical to the xoa appliance with all latest patches applied

    I can't speak for them, but I believe the answer is yes. However, the master branch is updated regularly, so you are dealing with a moving target. They are building XOA from a specific point in time.

    Since then, additions & updates have been made to the source code. These won't appear in XOA until they release an update. So those of us not running their appliance are effective acting as their beta testers. 😉

    Compiling the master branch is either equal to and just as safe as the latest patched xen orchestra appliance or it's not. If it's not, that's a problem.

    Not true as explained above. You can build your own copy of XO using the latest master branch or you can choose a specific point in time using either releases or tags. If you require something that has gone through a QA process and comes with support, then use their pre-built appliance.

  • To answer @Pechkin000 original question: If you build yourself from the sources you get the LATEST. The appliance is build from the exact same sources, but is then tested for a while before it is realeased.

    At work we're using the appliance, at home I am using "from sources" and to be honest I havent had any issues with my "from sources"-version.
    All tho, if you are running an enterprise-shop you should really really know what you are doing if you decide to go with the "from sources"-version since this is pretty much untested.

    I dont understand why @mropen is being so dramatic - Did you have any issues with the "from sources"-version?

  • Banned

    @nikade It's either the same or it's not. It sounds like it's not the same. Hopefully someone takes a big wet bite out of their asses to send a message. I fucking hate assholes that abuse the gpl this way. I might do it myself. What does their revenue look like? Maybe I'll start a legal case and distribute the funds to the free software foundation.

    "Did you have any issues with the "from sources"-version?"
    No. Someone else told me about their practices. They can't legally do what they are doing and it pisses me off that they are getting away with it. If people don't stand up to gpl abuses, open software will cease to exist. It's the whole reason it's a license.

    If they want to write closed source software, they should work for Microsoft.

  • XCP-ng Center Team

    @mropen please write an email directly to vates instead of public anouncing legal steps.

    I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of branches and tags in git?

    XOA is just a debian with a tagged version of XenOrchestra. Nothing special here. And if there is one little hidden bash script why fight a legal case against a company that is bringing a hypervisor back to free use WITH the community?

    Maybe you should fight first against facebook/google.

  • XCP-ng Team

    @mropen there is absolutely no hidden patch: stable and latest are just release choices we made in XOA. You can see XOA as a turnkey solution that can be sold (with support) because:

    • there is a lot of various components in various versions: to ensure it works, we must freeze and start QA on a kind of "snapshot" development (when we are happy about the features within the timeframe, once a month for XOA release cycle)
    • QA will take some time and efforts, but we are sure about what's running in what (Debian, package version, node version etc). Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to sell support on tons of platform/versions (combinations are almost infinite)
    • when we are happy with QA, we are releasing latest, and put content of previous latest into stable.

    That's it, and that's a way to be sure we are distributing something that will work as expected. I hope it's more clear for you now. Just tell your "someone else" to be more aware of what's going on before doing claims like that.

    PS: latest is not based on master, it's the future stable (like a "tick tock" release model if you like). In fact, we aren't using branches to decide to integrate this or that. We just chose a moment to freeze the dev and put that "snapshot" into QA for the next latest.

    As @Danp said, if you are building XO yourself on master, then it's a moving target. Also you'll use your own distro/tools, so it's impossible to predict the exact outcome without doing QA and support yourself (which is fine for home usage or if you have a dedicated QA/support team for your XO internally, and frankly, having XOA will be cheaper: that's why we sell it, despite having all features available for free on Github.)

  • Banned

    Based on what you're saying it appears to be impossible to have a binary equivalent version of XOA appliance upon each update. If that's the case, that is illegal.

    "and frankly, having XOA will be cheaper: that's why we sell it,"
    You sell it to make money. That's it. There's nothing wrong with that. That's a good thing but you MUST allow for binary equivalents of the XOA appliance including the updates. That appears to be impossible now.

  • Banned


    Every single component of Xen Orchestra is built from open source components where you can duplicate official builds with sources easily. It's actually encouraged. If the XOA developers want to take this code, build on it and not do the same, that's not in alliance with the spirit of the gpl and is honestly just shitty. They deserve whatever happens to them for that. This isn't a game of obfuscation with words and motives. These are legal contracts. Without these legal contracts these tools and projects would have never grown.

  • Banned

    @olivierlambert There appears to be no "latest" or "stable" branches as well.

    Even if you do make that public, it's unclear if this can still be made to be compliant with the gpl.

  • XCP-ng Team

    I'm fed up with trolling. I already explained that XOA can be seen as a "Xen Orchestra dedicated distro", we make the choice to build it from a "snapshot" (commit) on various component. It's not based on a GitHub branch. That's our choice that you can do on your side if you want to build a XOA equivalent. You have all the 3 liberties of GPL software because everything is available on GitHub.

    XOA is a choice of which version to use together for each component, with QA and mastered env to be able to make efficient support.

    If you can't understand that despite 3 or 4 persons explained that to you, we can't do anything else. Good bye.

Log in to reply

XCP-ng Pro Support

XCP-ng Pro Support