-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all,
some plugins depend on modules that are not mentioned in requirements.txt. Among them, Cisco Nexus (ncclient), Brocade (ncclient), Embrane (heleosapi)... Some other plugins put their dependencies in requirements.txt though (like Arista depending on jsonrpclib). There are pros and cons in both cases. The obvious issue with not putting those requirements in the file is that packagers are left uninformed about those implicit requirements existing, meaning plugins are shipped to users with broken dependencies. It also means we ship code that depends on unknown modules grabbed from random places in the internet instead of relying on what's available on pypi, which is a bit scary. With my packager hat on, I would like to suggest to make those dependencies explicit by filling in requirements.txt. This will make packaging a bit easier. Of course, runtime dependencies being set correctly do not mean plugins are working and tested, but at least we give them chance to be tested and used. But, maybe there are valid concerns against doing so. In that case, I would be glad to know how packagers are expected to track those implicit dependencies. I would like to ask community to decide what's the right way to handle those cases. Cheers, /Ihar -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT7Lu2AAoJEC5aWaUY1u57tDkIAOrx1TWVjke8xxsJtz+tizmg rDgoQyugU8bmaWUFzKi3yVLDFmkOH5iX9RFqj6pgXngydd+cO0Z8CB825uT7kimi tTwTk2o1Ty4lIG38nwi/U8pn+nmzVApjOqtJmBmtZKBtoY7hRUs+QVTz5V5M1AmA MQm0eYZXMQ531k4UTdaFxtZ2xPvnCEsFTWi0vosZLPvccVw33vUnQ0SnewQAgb4w NZ7m302454S2INegqVYlZqQMQXxy6v/BAigyoLXBj8Pl3FsrNU0j3SMtzqSm71ty GCz0qdWckUdgsDFnLyyNXjUV/G9xZ03pYZ5ID2WiVQl5MYbmkAHlJJkjCYIrv3c= =tLTZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
