On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote:

> On 29 August 2014 04:42, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote:
>> On 08/28/2014 12:22 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> ...
>>> The problem is that the setuptools implementation of namespace packages 
>>> breaks in a way that is repeatable but difficult to debug when a common 
>>> OpenStack installation pattern is used. So the fix is “don’t do that” where 
>>> I thought “that” meant the installation pattern and Sean thought it meant 
>>> “use namespace packages”. :-)
>> Stupid english... be more specific!
>> Yeh, Doug provides the most concise statement of where we failed on
>> communication (I take a big chunk of that blame). Hopefully now it's a
>> lot clearer what's going on, and why it hurts if you do it.
> So... FWIW I think I've got a cleaner implementation of namespaces
> *for our context* - it takes inspiration from the PEP-420 discussion
> and final design. It all started when Mike reported issues with testr
> to me.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.db/+bug/1366869
> tl;dr: we should stop using pkg_resources style namespace packages and
> instead have an effectively empty oslo package that sets up the
> namespace, which all namespaced libraries would depend on. With a stub
> __init__ in local source trees that adds the site-packages path to
> itself automatically, and excluding that file in sdist, it should be
> entirely transparent to developers and packagers, with no file
> conflicts etc.
> This works with the existing pkg_resources namespace packages, lets us
> migrate away from the pkg_resources implementation one package at a
> time, and we don't need to rename any of the packages, and it works
> fine with uninstalled and install -e installed source trees.
> We need:
> - a new olso package to introduce a common oslo/__init__.py
> (recommended in the pre-PEP420 world)
> - a tiny pbr bugfix: https://review.openstack.org/123597
> - and a patch like so to each project: https://review.openstack.org/123604
> I have such an olso package https://github.com/rbtcollins/oslo, if
> this sounds reasonable I will push up an infra patch to create it.

You say this would work with "uninstalled and install -e source trees”. Would 
this work if the base oslo package was installed with -e as well, as we might 
do in devstack?

I’m not trying to shoot down the idea, I’m just trying to make sure we’ve 
thought of all of the cases we’ve seen things break.


> -Rob
> -- 
> Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
> Distinguished Technologist
> HP Converged Cloud
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to