> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:08 AM, Michael Chapman <wop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Craig Tracey <cr...@craigtracey.com> wrote: >> Great input Kris. We also took a look at Anvil, and as you mention it is >> heavily biased for RH based distros. >> >> With regard to your requirements: >> 1) Under the cover for Giftwrap we use fpm for package creation, so debs and >> rpms are merely a flag to toggle. > > During the Paris session someone specifically mentioned they didn't want to > use fpm, and wanted plain spec files instead. If that person is on this list, > or if there's anyone else in that position, care to elaborate? Is there a > specific limitation people are concerned about? >
We get this request pretty commonly - the most common use case I hear like this is people who want to start with a "reference" build (RDO / OSP, UCA, etc) and minimally customize. So they want to stay with the original spec or debian/* packaging and tweak, vs package de novo >> 2) Giftwrap is targeted for precisely this workflow. We pull our OpenStack >> source from a forked git repo, with any patches applied. The giftwrap >> manifest allows for specification of repo as well as ref. > > I asked you about this in Paris, but for the benefit of the list, what about > native packages? I find I need to package things like libvirt as well. As a > community are we expecting to run one packaging tool for Openstack's python > packages and one tool for everything else, or do we expect that to be > combined into a single tool that can handle both? > Strong preference for same tool doing both. Which couples with the above point to land on "need a generic rpm / deb builder" at least for those use cases
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
