Re: Ansible 2.0 in Fedora: review request for python-shade (and a copr)
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:35:49PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
> Under review, thanks for preparing ansible 2.0 landing :)
Haïkel,
I think I fixed the spec file w/r/t to your initial review comments.
Cheers,
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> | larsks @ {freenode,twitter,github}
Cloud Engineering / OpenStack | http://blog.oddbit.com/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ansible in Fedora 23+ (python3)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:54:29AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> same python version as the Ansible version you're using. If Ansible were to
> use python3, all module bindings would need to be python 3, and *all the
> managed machines would need to have python3 installed*.
Isn't it entirely possible -- through liberal use of 'six' and 'from
future...' -- to write code that will operate correctly with both
Python 2 and Python 3? I thought that, e.g., OpenStack was pursuing
exactly that strategy.
Sure, you still need your target Python 3 environment to have the
appropriate supporting modules, but that seems like a different issue.
Environments runnning Python 2 should continue to Just Work.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> | larsks @ {freenode,twitter,github}
Cloud Engineering / OpenStack | http://blog.oddbit.com/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: ansible in Fedora 23+ (python3)
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:36:28PM -0400, Ryan S. Brown wrote:
> The difference here is the span of versions that need to be supported.
> OpenStack is only trying to support 2.7-3.X and the gulf between 2.4 and 2.7
> is actually quite broad.
True that, and I didn't bother to check what Ansible target was for
supported Python versions. Bad Lars.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> | larsks @ {freenode,twitter,github}
Cloud Engineering / OpenStack | http://blog.oddbit.com/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Ansible 2.0 in Fedora: review request for python-shade (and a copr)
Ansible 2.0 includes a suite of new OpenStack modules (that's good!)
that introduce a number of new requirements (that's bad!), but most of
those requirements are already satisfied in rawhide (that's good!),
except for python-shade (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/shade).
I've produced a python-shade package and submitted a review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271768
This is the first time I've tried formally packaging a Python module,
so be gentle.
If you're less interested in package reviews and more interested in
using those spiffy new openstack modules, there is an installable
python-shade package available via my COPR:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/larsks/python-shade/
(Caveat: rawhide required)
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> | larsks @ {freenode,twitter,github}
Cloud Engineering / OpenStack | http://blog.oddbit.com/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: man-db without cache update (no cron or systemd *.timer)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:56:19PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hmm, not sure I follow here. Since when is systemd an optional
component in Fedora?
I have been spending much of my time building Fedora-based Docker
containers recently. I've been sticking to the
one-process-per-container model because I think it brings a number of
advantages. One of the biggest, in my opinion, is that container
management reduces to process management, and I already have a
great process manager on my host. It's called systemd.
Decomposing an application into single-process containers also means
that it's easier to scale individual components. *And* for many
applications -- those that can log to stderr/stdout -- it means
that application logs show up in my host journal *where I want them*.
Running any sort of process manager inside the container can also have
the unintended side-effect of hiding problems from the host. If an
application is failing to start because of a configuration issue, I
don't want that managed inside the container -- I want the host to be
aware of that so that higher-level mechanisms can be involved. I want
a host- or cluster- level container manager to be able to restart
dependent containers, or to have the opportunity to reschedule a
container on another host.
I think it is absolutely essential that systemd is *able* to run
inside a container -- because I think there are invariably going to be
situations in which the one-process-per-container model simply doesn't
pan out. But I also think that in many situations it is not required
and using systemd inside the container simply complicates things.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com | larsks @ {freenode,twitter,github}
Cloud Engineering / OpenStack | http://blog.oddbit.com/
pgpM0qJf6tF8K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
Hello everyone, I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for libre (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for baresip (http://www.creytiv.com/baresip.html), which is a barebones SIP client that I've found very useful for testing SIP connectivity. I would ultimately like to get baresip into Fedora, but I will first need to get the libre and librem libraries packaged first. I've done a lot of packaging in the past for personal and/or work related projects, but this is my first time trying to share work with the larger community. Cheers, -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Doesn't look too bad ;) judging based on very brief look at the spec file,
but it violates the Static Library Packaging Guidelines, and I wonder
who owns %{_datadir}/re?
I've removed the static library and made the package an explicit owner
of %{_datadir}/re.
%{_libdir}/libre.so
A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the API/ABI?
Yeah, that's my feeling, too, but that's what the upstream Makefile
currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms
of patching the upstream build process.
--
Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Hello! Also, packaging baresip for Fedora
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:38:25PM -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the API/ABI? Yeah, that's my feeling, too, but that's what the upstream Makefile currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms of patching the upstream build process. I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the package version for the library version. -- Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
