On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:38 AM Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 02:37 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" <z...@debian.org
> > <mailto: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
> >> > 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?
> What if operating systems would be the same?
We still want to install from pypi, because we still want deployers to
build images for their cloud using our DIB elements. There is absolutely no
situation in which I can imagine we'd want to install a binary packaged
version of this. There's a VERY high chance we will soon be using a distro
that isn't even a supported OpenStack deploy target...
> As a Debian package maintainer, I really prefer if the underlying images
> can also be Debian (and preferably Debian stable everywhere).
Sure, I love Debian too, but we're investigating things like Alpine and
Cirros as our base image, and there's pretty much zero chance anyone will
package ANY of our deps for those distros. Cirros doesn't even have a
package manager AFAIK.
> > 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.
> The issue isn't co-instability, but the fact that downstream
> distribution vendors will only package *ONE* version of a given python
> module. If we have Octavia with version X, and another component of
> OpenStack with version Y, then we're stuck with Octavia not being
> packageable in downstream distros.
Octavia will not use gunicorn for its main OpenStack API layer. It will
continue to be packagable regardless of whether gunicorn is available.
Gunicorn is used for our *amphora image*, which is not part of the main
deployment layer. It is part of our *dataplane*. It is unrelated to any
part of Octavia that is deployed as part of the main service layer of
Openstack. In fact, in production, deployers may completely ignore gunicorn
altogether and use a different solution, that is up to the way they build
their amphora image (which, again, is not part of the main deployment). We
just use gunicorn in the image we use for our gate tests.
> > 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
> Do you understand now? :)
I see what you are saying, but I assert it does not apply to our case at
all. Do you see how our case is different?
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)