On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 08:43 PM, Adam Harwell wrote:
> > Jim, that is exactly my thought -- the main focus of g-r as far as I was
> > aware is to maintain interoperability between project dependencies for
> > openstack deploys, and since our amphora image is totally separate, it
> > should not be restricted to g-r requirements.
> The fact that we have a unified version number of a given lib in all of
> OpenStack is also because that's a requirement of downstream distros.
> Imagine that someone would like to build the Octavia image using
> exclusively packages from <your-favorite-distro-here>...
> > I brought this up, but
> > others thought it would be prudent to go the g-r route anyway.
> It is, and IMO you should go this route.

I'm not convinced by your arguments here, Thomas. If the distributor were
packaging Octavia for X but the image is using some other operating system,
say Y, why are X's packages relevant? I would think that if this is
something inside an image going to be launched by Octavia that
co-installibilty wouldn't really be an issue.

I don't lean either way right now, so I'd really like to understand your
point of view, especially since right now it isn't making much sense to me.
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to