On 04/17/2013 01:05, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 04/16/2013 03:58 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >> And we do consider a bit more here. Each and every package >> takes extra space in the various metadata places, like Packages (times >> number of architectures), our database, our various handling scripts of >> archive/testing/pts/bugs/whatnot. So we have to decide between an >> excessive split and something that makes sense. >> >> The nova packages consist[1] mostly of one file in /usr/bin with the size >> between 1500 and 3000 bytes, or worse - one file in /etc between 45 and >> 222 bytes - or even nothing (nova-volume). > > I am on the side of Russ Allbery here. Ideally, as a developer, I > shouldn't have to worry about this, too much, and here is IMHO too much. > The infrastructure problems which Debian runs into shouldn't clash with > the convenience users either, to the point where Debian would be a very > special case with packaging different from other distro, and breaking > existing puppet scripts others are already maintaining (for Debian > and/or Ubuntu).
Note that every distribution does package nova in a different way: - In Fedora binary packages are named "openstack-nova-*" (except for python-nova). - Fedora has only 13 binary packages, compared to ~30 binaries in Ubuntu. - Gentoo, Arch only have a single package (though Gentoo doesn't have a concept of "binary packages" as far as I know). - All of Fedora, Gentoo, Arch bundle multiple daemons in a single package. So things already work differently on different distribution. I also don't think having less binary packages means less convenience: people who decide to host their own cloud infrastructure most likely already use a configuration management system such as puppet. Having to enable some service via a configuration file (or other means) instead of installing additional packages shouldn't really make a difference. Note that there already seems to be a configuration file that must be changed[1]. [1] <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/2013-April/002259.html> >> Lets pick one set out here. nova-compute-*. Those seem to ship config >> files for compute nodes of different types. lxc, kvm, qemu, whatever. >> We question two things here: That it is neccessary to split them into >> one <100byte file per package ones, and that they all have to conflict >> with each other. > > As you know, a package isn't only made with what files it holds. It also > contains precious dependencies. By asking to switch to a single package, > you are removing the possibility to have dependencies that make sense. Most binary packages don't have additional dependencies as mentioned in my initial rejection[2]. [2] <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/2013-April/002257.html> > Package: nova-compute-kvm > Depends: python-libvirt, libvirt-bin, kvm > > I don't want to just document this, OpenStack is complicated enough > already, adding installation of dependencies as a manual thing matching > configuration files or debconf values would be annoying. There are many packages that require this. A random example: mediawiki depends on php5-mysql | php5-pgsql | php5-sqlite | php5-mysqlnd. Which one is right depends on the configuration. Having mediawiki-mysql, mediawiki-pgsql, mediawiki-sqlite, ... instead would not scale well. It gets really bad if you have more than one option (mediawiki-{apache2,lighttpd,...}-{mysql,pgsql,...}?). Ansgar PS: Maybe it's time to move the discussion back somewhere else? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
