Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On 01/29/2015 05:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 01/24/2015 02:01 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi, I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9 days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs? Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log? Is three something that I am missing here? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) >>> >>> The naming is described in the spec: >>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html >>> >>> tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers. >>> >>> Doug >> >> Hi Doug, >> >> Sorry for the late reply. >> >> Well, you're not making the life of *package maintainers* more easy, >> that's in fact the opposite way, I'm afraid. >> >> The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after >> the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do: >> >> import oslo_db >> >> then the package should be called python-oslo-db. This means that I will >> have to rename all the Debian packages to remove the dot and put a dash >> instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack upstream is keeping the old >> naming convention, then all the requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by >> wrong, I mean from my perspective as a package maintainer), and the >> automated dependency calculation of dh_python2 will put package names >> with dots instead of dashes. >> >> So, what is going to happen, is that I'll have to, for each and every >> package, build a dictionary of translations in debian/pydist-overrides. > > That's unfortunate, but you're the only packager who seems to have this > issue. > > I've already spent 2 months more time working on this transition than I > planned, so I'm not planning to do anything else disruptive with it this > cycle. If it remains a problem, or some of the other packagers support > renaming the packages, we can discuss it at the L summit to be done > during the L cycle. > > Doug Hi Doug, I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. And finally, I don't think it's as bad as I previously thought. What I could do is the opposite of what I wrote above. Which is, package oslo.db as python-oslo.db and just add a Provides: python-oslo-db, and that's it. Since we have oslo.db in the requirements.txt, the automated dh_python2 dependency calculation will only add python-oslo.db in the Depends: of the packages. The only thing is that I have already uploaded python-oslo-context (with a dash), and this has to be fixed, but that's only a single lib, so it should be fine. I'll have to synchronize with guys from Canonical about this, so we are doing the same thing on both distro. Sorry for waiving hard for a false positive, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: By the way, I'm *very* happy that you did all the work of moving away from the namespace, Doug. Thanks a lot for that huge work! __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
Just something to note; anvil has never ran had issues with this (afaik).
It seems fairly easy to have a mapping/algorithm/other... that is used
imho (and this is just what anvil has); I don't recall that the number
of problems with weird names has been any real issue when building
rpms... It's sometimes an annoyance but meh, make better tooling in that
case?
Some of the mapping + other tweaks @
https://github.com/stackforge/anvil/blob/master/conf/distros/redhat.yaml#L9
Also the code at:
https://github.com/stackforge/anvil/blob/master/tools/py2rpm#L161 (which
does the brute work of most of the openstack *non-core* project package
building). The *core* (nova, glance...) project spec files are treated
specially @
https://github.com/stackforge/anvil/tree/master/conf/templates/packaging/specs
(these are cheetah templates that are expanded; allowing for
conditionals like '#if $newer_than_eq('2014.2')' to work...)
Food for thought,
-Josh
Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/24/2015 02:01 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9
days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs?
Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that
anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log?
Is three something that I am missing here?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
The naming is described in the spec:
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html
tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers.
Doug
Hi Doug,
Sorry for the late reply.
Well, you're not making the life of *package maintainers* more easy,
that's in fact the opposite way, I'm afraid.
The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after
the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do:
import oslo_db
then the package should be called python-oslo-db. This means that I will
have to rename all the Debian packages to remove the dot and put a dash
instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack upstream is keeping the old
naming convention, then all the requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by
wrong, I mean from my perspective as a package maintainer), and the
automated dependency calculation of dh_python2 will put package names
with dots instead of dashes.
So, what is going to happen, is that I'll have to, for each and every
package, build a dictionary of translations in debian/pydist-overrides.
For example:
# cat debian/pydist-overrides
oslo.db python-oslo-db
This is very error prone, and I may miss lots of dependencies this way,
leading to the packages having wrong dependencies. I have a way to avoid
the issue, which would be to add a Provides: python-oslo.db in the
python-oslo-db package, but this should only be considered as a
transition thing.
Also, as a side note, but it may be interesting for some: the package
python-oslo-db should have Breaks: python-oslo.db (<< OLD_VERSION) and
Replaces: (<< OLD_VERSION), as otherwise upgrades will simply fail
(because 2 different packages can't contain the same files on the
filesystem).
So if you really want to make our lives more easy, please do the full
migration, and move completely away from dots.
Also, I'd like to tell you that I feel very sorry that I couldn't attend
the session about the oslo namespace in Paris. I was taken by my company
to a "culture building" session all the afternoon. After reading the
above, I feel sorry that I didn't attend the namespace session instead. :(
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
__
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
__
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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
Julien Danjou wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29 2015, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > >> The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after >> the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do: >> >> import oslo_db >> >> then the package should be called python-oslo-db. >> >> This means that I will have to rename all the Debian packages to >> remove the dot and put a dash instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack >> upstream is keeping the old naming convention, then all the >> requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by wrong, I mean from my perspective >> as a package maintainer), and the automated dependency calculation of >> dh_python2 will put package names with dots instead of dashes. > > So that's a mistake from the Debian policy and/or tools. > > The import statement is unrelated to the package name as it is published > on PyPI. A package could provide several Python modules, for example you > could have oslo_foo and olso_bar provided by the same package, e.g. > example oslo.foobar or oslo_foobar. > > What's in requirements.txt are package names, not modules names. So if > you or Debian packages in general rely on that to build the list of > dependencies and packages name, you should somehow fix dh_python2. > > What we decided to do is to name our packages (published on PyPI) by > oslo.something and provide one and only Python modules that is called > oslo_something. That is totally valid. > > I understand that it's hard for you because of dh_python2 likely, but > it's Debian tooling or policy that should be fixed. > > I'm not doing much Debian stuff nowadays, but I'll be happy to help you > out if you need to amend the policy or clear things out with dh_python2. The policy is actually not that strict, if I understand it correctly: """ The binary package for module foo should preferably be named python-foo, if the module name allows, but this is not required if the binary package ships multiple modules. In the latter case the maintainer chooses the name of the module which represents the package the most. For subpackages such as foo.bar, the recommendation is to name the binary packages python-foo.bar and python3-foo.bar. """ That feels like a "recommendation" to me. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On Thu, Jan 29 2015, Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi Thomas, > The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after > the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do: > > import oslo_db > > then the package should be called python-oslo-db. > > This means that I will have to rename all the Debian packages to > remove the dot and put a dash instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack > upstream is keeping the old naming convention, then all the > requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by wrong, I mean from my perspective > as a package maintainer), and the automated dependency calculation of > dh_python2 will put package names with dots instead of dashes. So that's a mistake from the Debian policy and/or tools. The import statement is unrelated to the package name as it is published on PyPI. A package could provide several Python modules, for example you could have oslo_foo and olso_bar provided by the same package, e.g. example oslo.foobar or oslo_foobar. What's in requirements.txt are package names, not modules names. So if you or Debian packages in general rely on that to build the list of dependencies and packages name, you should somehow fix dh_python2. What we decided to do is to name our packages (published on PyPI) by oslo.something and provide one and only Python modules that is called oslo_something. That is totally valid. I understand that it's hard for you because of dh_python2 likely, but it's Debian tooling or policy that should be fixed. I'm not doing much Debian stuff nowadays, but I'll be happy to help you out if you need to amend the policy or clear things out with dh_python2. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou ;; Free Software hacker ;; http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/24/2015 02:01 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9 > >> days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs? > >> Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that > >> anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log? > >> > >> Is three something that I am missing here? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > > > The naming is described in the spec: > > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html > > > > tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers. > > > > Doug > > Hi Doug, > > Sorry for the late reply. > > Well, you're not making the life of *package maintainers* more easy, > that's in fact the opposite way, I'm afraid. > > The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after > the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do: > > import oslo_db > > then the package should be called python-oslo-db. This means that I will > have to rename all the Debian packages to remove the dot and put a dash > instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack upstream is keeping the old > naming convention, then all the requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by > wrong, I mean from my perspective as a package maintainer), and the > automated dependency calculation of dh_python2 will put package names > with dots instead of dashes. > > So, what is going to happen, is that I'll have to, for each and every > package, build a dictionary of translations in debian/pydist-overrides. That's unfortunate, but you're the only packager who seems to have this issue. I've already spent 2 months more time working on this transition than I planned, so I'm not planning to do anything else disruptive with it this cycle. If it remains a problem, or some of the other packagers support renaming the packages, we can discuss it at the L summit to be done during the L cycle. Doug > For example: > > # cat debian/pydist-overrides > oslo.db python-oslo-db > > This is very error prone, and I may miss lots of dependencies this way, > leading to the packages having wrong dependencies. I have a way to avoid > the issue, which would be to add a Provides: python-oslo.db in the > python-oslo-db package, but this should only be considered as a > transition thing. > > Also, as a side note, but it may be interesting for some: the package > python-oslo-db should have Breaks: python-oslo.db (<< OLD_VERSION) and > Replaces: (<< OLD_VERSION), as otherwise upgrades will simply fail > (because 2 different packages can't contain the same files on the > filesystem). > > So if you really want to make our lives more easy, please do the full > migration, and move completely away from dots. > > Also, I'd like to tell you that I feel very sorry that I couldn't attend > the session about the oslo namespace in Paris. I was taken by my company > to a "culture building" session all the afternoon. After reading the > above, I feel sorry that I didn't attend the namespace session instead. > :( > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On 01/24/2015 02:01 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9 >> days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs? >> Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that >> anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log? >> >> Is three something that I am missing here? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > The naming is described in the spec: > http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html > > tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers. > > Doug Hi Doug, Sorry for the late reply. Well, you're not making the life of *package maintainers* more easy, that's in fact the opposite way, I'm afraid. The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do: import oslo_db then the package should be called python-oslo-db. This means that I will have to rename all the Debian packages to remove the dot and put a dash instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack upstream is keeping the old naming convention, then all the requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by wrong, I mean from my perspective as a package maintainer), and the automated dependency calculation of dh_python2 will put package names with dots instead of dashes. So, what is going to happen, is that I'll have to, for each and every package, build a dictionary of translations in debian/pydist-overrides. For example: # cat debian/pydist-overrides oslo.db python-oslo-db This is very error prone, and I may miss lots of dependencies this way, leading to the packages having wrong dependencies. I have a way to avoid the issue, which would be to add a Provides: python-oslo.db in the python-oslo-db package, but this should only be considered as a transition thing. Also, as a side note, but it may be interesting for some: the package python-oslo-db should have Breaks: python-oslo.db (<< OLD_VERSION) and Replaces: (<< OLD_VERSION), as otherwise upgrades will simply fail (because 2 different packages can't contain the same files on the filesystem). So if you really want to make our lives more easy, please do the full migration, and move completely away from dots. Also, I'd like to tell you that I feel very sorry that I couldn't attend the session about the oslo namespace in Paris. I was taken by my company to a "culture building" session all the afternoon. After reading the above, I feel sorry that I didn't attend the namespace session instead. :( Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi, > > I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9 > days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs? > Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that > anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log? > > Is three something that I am missing here? > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) The naming is described in the spec: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers. Doug > > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] Why are we continuing to add new namespaced oslo libs?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:48:32AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9 > days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs? > Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that > anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log? > > Is three something that I am missing here? The decision at paris was to maintain the same naming convention so the oslo packages are consistent, since dhellman didn't want to rename a lot of packages. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-November/050313.html signature.asc Description: 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
