On 10/18/2016 08:07 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: > If there's no objection to us using gunicorn without it being present in > g-r, then I don't know if I want to argue strongly for adding it -- the > only benefit I see to tracking g-r at all is that it lets us continue to > get free version tracking for our amphora dependencies as they are > updated in g-r without having to manually tweak them. Once we go away > from using g-r for our amphora-requirements, our project team has to > track these dependencies manually. Tweaking the requirements bot to look > at amphora-requirements.txt as Doug mentioned won't actually do much, > since the whole point here is that we're including things that aren't in > g-r so there's no source to update them from. > > So, does everyone at least agree that it's ok for us to *use* gunicorn > internally on our service-vm image? If so, I'm happy to move forward > with option #2 if it looks like that'll be the path of least resistance. > As I said, options 3 and 4 are not really good solutions to this > particular problem, so in my view we should do whichever is most likely > to be accepted of options 1 or 2. > > --Adam
Personally I'm happy with it being in gr, it's not the perfect place though. (bindep would probably be better I feel, it's packaged on my distro) Do you need a specific version (bindep can't handle versions)? As a packager I'd rather not force the type of server on my users. -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev