On 04/18/2013 02:52 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Thomas Goirand > > (Cc-ing you, since I don't know if you're subscribed. Apologies for the > extra copy if you are.)
I am not subscribed indeed, thanks. >> You guys are writing this as if it was impossible to switch from one >> hypervisor to another. Yet this is simply not the case. You can easily >> switch from one type of hypervisor to another with the current packages >> (by editing /etc/nova/nova-compute.conf manually and installing the >> dependencies manually as well). My point is just that multiple packages >> make it possible to automate the switch in the config file and >> dependencies by simply doing apt-get. I think this is an important >> feature and I don't want to see it go. > > It sounds wrong to use dependencies where dpkg-reconfigure will do. You don't get it (I may have explain badly...). If one installs nova-compute-kvm, he will be expecting it to have kvm installed, and work out of the box. If there was only dpkg-reconfigure, then I would have to actually *remove* the dependencies on kvm, and let our users solve the dependencies manually. I don't want to do that. I think dependencies are important and help our users. I think that integrators who run puppet scripts also don't want things to suddenly change and break their scripts, or have the setup very different in Debian vs other distro. I think it's worth the added 0.016% binaries. Though having dependencies doesn't mean you cannot edit the config file and use nova-compute-kvm to run the XCP flavor of Nova if you apt-get manually the correct dependencies and edit the configuration files. It's weird to do that, I personally wouldn't and I don't see any use case for it. But it seems that it's what you want to do, and I'm just saying that it is possible, if you like to mess with things. >> If we consider that I'm requesting 5 more binary packages, and that we >> have 30 000 packages in Debian, we are talking about 0.016% more binary >> packages in Debian. I can't believe that only for 0.016% more binaries >> is so unbearable for the archive. > > It's pushing the knife ever so slightly deeper into the wound. The > problem, as Russ has pointed out isn't your five extra packages or > somebody else in particular's packages. It's the cumulative weight of > all of them. Yes, in an ideal world this shouldn't be a problem, but > until somebody comes up with a fix, that's what we have to work with. You are missing the hole point of why I was unhappy with the FTP masters to block my package before the OpenStack summit. Since the very beginning, I asked about having my package accepted, then we can discuss later. That unless you still think that adding 0.016% more binary packages *temporarily* until we have an agreement, is adding too much load on the infrastructure in the short term. I still think all these binary packages are needed, but if we could not agree, at least I think it wasn't too much to ask to solve the problem later. Especially when absolutely all the other packages were approved. I'm talking about 48 source packages here, plus many other python module which I updated during the last 6 months release cycle of OpenStack. It is sad that it is impossible to ask for a bit of teamwork, so that we meet some political goals helping Debian adoption. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
