Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

t; >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org >>> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org >>> >> >>>>>>>> <

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:open

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

>>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > Yes, but we need to use SOMETHING for our own devstack gate tests -- maybe > it is easier to think of our devstack code as a "third party setup", and > that it uses gunicorn for i

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

ev@lists.openstack.org>> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

To reply more directly and clearly: On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:30 PM Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:41:16AM +, Adam Harwell wrote: > > I wonder if maybe it is not clear -- for us, gunicorn is a runtime > > dependency for our gate jobs to work, not a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

tack.org> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>>> > >>>>>>>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > >>>>>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org&

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

t; <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 >>>>>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 08:25 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 10/18/2016 12:05 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: >> Inline comments. >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:38 AM Thomas Goirand > > wrote: >> >> On 10/18/2016 02:37 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: >> > On Oct 17, 2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 07:05 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +1100, Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:41:16AM +, Adam Harwell wrote: > > I wonder if maybe it is not clear -- for us, gunicorn is a runtime > > dependency for our gate jobs to work, not a deploy dependency. > > Okay then frankly I'm deeply

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:41:16AM +, Adam Harwell wrote: > I wonder if maybe it is not clear -- for us, gunicorn is a runtime > dependency for our gate jobs to work, not a deploy dependency. Okay then frankly I'm deeply confused. Can we see the code that uses it? to understand why the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

I wonder if maybe it is not clear -- for us, gunicorn is a runtime dependency for our gate jobs to work, not a deploy dependency. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 11:16 Tony Breeds wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:12:45PM -0600, Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > Right, so, we’re

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:12:45PM -0600, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Right, so, we’re dancing around the common problem in openstack lately: what > the heck is openstack? Sorry to get here so late. > This came up because service VMs/data plane implementations, which this is, > have different

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 03:56 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 12:53:18 -0600: >> >>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> >>> I expect you could take over a corner of the dev lounge or some >>> other space to hold a

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 12:53:18 -0600: > > > On Oct 18, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > I expect you could take over a corner of the dev lounge or some > > other space to hold a BoF to at least start the discussion and get > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

@lists.openstack.org >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>>>>> &

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

org>>>> > >>>>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > >>>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>>>> &

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

lists.openstack.org< > mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> < > mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> < > mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <openstack-dev@lists.open

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 12:05 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > Inline comments. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:38 AM Thomas Goirand > wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 02:37 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand"

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

gt;> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.opens

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

sts.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:ope

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

nstack.org>>> >>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 >>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org&g

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

enstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

For the record, it might help if people actually look at how we're proposing to use the gunicorn python module (remember, this code is executing inside a *service VM*, not on the main control plane): https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386758/12/octavia/cmd/agent.py On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:05 AM

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Inline comments. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:38 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/18/2016 02:37 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" > > wrote: > >> > >> On 10/17/2016 08:43 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > >> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 02:44 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> For the record uwsgi was not (at least at one point) allowed in g-r as >> it was not a "runtime dependency" it was to be installed more like >> apache mod_wsgi at the

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, Matthew Thode wrote: On 10/18/2016 11:25 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: We really don't want bindep IMO -- it's much safer to use the non-packaged version from pypi for our purposes, since we may not be running on a system that packages things like this. Again, our use case may

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 02:44 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > For the record uwsgi was not (at least at one point) allowed in g-r as > it was not a "runtime dependency" it was to be installed more like > apache mod_wsgi at the time. Gunicorn could fall into the same category, > it is meant to be used in

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Matthew Thode wrote: > > On 10/18/2016 11:25 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: >> We really don't want bindep IMO -- it's much safer to use the >> non-packaged version from pypi for our purposes, since we may not be >> running on a system that

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 11:25 AM, Adam Harwell wrote: > We really don't want bindep IMO -- it's much safer to use the > non-packaged version from pypi for our purposes, since we may not be > running on a system that packages things like this. Again, our use case > may be strange though, as we're really

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 11:35 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On 10/18/2016 02:37 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" > 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 was >> > aware is to maintain

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:ope

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

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

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 18, 2016 8:09 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > > > Doug Wiegley wrote: > > > [...] Paths forward: > > > > > > 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. > > > > > > 2. Create a project specific “ampho

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

ck.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > Doug Wiegley wrote: > > [...] Paths forward: > > > > 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. > > > > 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the > > ser

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Doug Wiegley wrote: > [...] Paths forward: > > 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. > > 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the > service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been > pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Right, and this is totally possible (using a different distro). In fact, it is *likely* that in the future the amphora image will be based on a minimal distro and not anything like the distro the rest of OpenStack is deployed to. Also, given that the amphora image build process uses DIB and

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > On Oct 17, 2016 17:32, "Thomas Goirand" > wrote: > > > > On 10/17/2016 08:43 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > > > Jim, that is exactly my thought -- the main focus of g-r as

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016 17:32, "Thomas Goirand" 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 was > > aware is to maintain interoperability between project dependencies for > > openstack deploys, and since

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" 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 was > > aware is to maintain interoperability between project dependencies for > > openstack deploys, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

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 was > 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

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Jim, that is exactly my thought -- the main focus of g-r as far as I was 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. I brought this up, but others thought

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Doug Wiegley > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On a review to add gunicorn to global requirements[1], we were asked to send >> a notice to the ML. In this

Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Doug Wiegley wrote: > Hi, > > On a review to add gunicorn to global requirements[1], we were asked to send > a notice to the ML. In this particular application, it’s for use inside a > service VM for Octavia.