Open Stack

Am 5. März 2013 19:05:18 schrieb Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org>:
> On 03/05/2013 10:02 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > In practical terms, I'm proposing doing:
> >
> >  -package = 'oslo-config'
> >  -version = '2013.1'
> >  +package = 'oslo.config'
> >  +version = '1.1.0'
> >
> > in oslo-config's setup.py
>
> I'm sorry, I will have to be the bad guy complaining and ranting here. I
> hate to do so, but I have to explain what the consequences can be, since
> it doesn't seem to be understood or known.
>
> As I wrote on IRC, we can talk for a century about repainting the shed,
> this wont make things work better. This is only added work for no real
> benefits.
>
> On the Debian packaging side of things, I will to:
>
> - wait until python-oslo-config gets in, since it's still in the FTP
> masters NEW queue with lots of other Openstack packages:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
>
> I will not consider asking the FTP masters to remove the package from
> the NEW queue, as I don't want to miss my turn, waiting time is
> currently already too high (it takes between 1 or 2 months currently, to
> have a new package accepted).
>
> Then when it's in debian experimental, I have 2 alternatives:
>

Sorry for only replying here and while I acknowledge that this isn't 
particularly easy to do, this process seriously deserves fixing. To add 
some (unfair) comparison, within the openSUSE project, response times 
longer than a day are already considered long.

> 1# Once it's in, upload the "fixed name" version, and wait (another 1
> month?), add a Break: python-oslo-config and a Replaces:
> python-oslo-config in debian/control, which I will have to carry for the
> next millennium otherwise, someone might complain that I'm not providing
> a correct upgrade path in SID to SID upgrades.
>
> - Fix all dependencies in all Grizzly packages (they all have already,
> hard-coded in build-depends: and depends:, a dependency to
> python-oslo-config).
>
> - When done, ask for removal of python-oslo.config.
>
> - Pray that there wont be a time where python-oslo-config *AND*
> python-oslo.config will be required at the same time (this can happen if
> not all package updates are available at the same time, and that some
> are lagging waiting for FTP masters approval).
>
> Now, imagine that if Wheezy was out, and Grizzly uploaded to SID, then
> I'd have to manage a transition with the release team, just because "it
> looks better". Lucky, I will not have to do such thing, as none of
> Grizzly is uploaded yet.
>
> Or:
>
> 2# Keep python-oslo-config, and simply add a Provides:
> python-oslo.config for the rare cases where I forgot, and add
> pydist-override, and that's it. Unfortunately, this also means doing
> something different from Ubuntu, which I am always trying to avoid if
> possible (in the hope that we can, in some vague future, have a tiny
> hope of doing the packaging work together... :P).
>
> If I was a lazy man, and didn't want to bother FTP masters, release
> team, and so on, I could choose #2, and keep python-oslo-config as the
> "main" package name, so your efforts will be wasted.
>
> I'm also wondering who you are trying to please here. Because you
> clearly chatted about the name of the distributions package name, saying
> that we could call it python-oslo.config. Well, the distribution guy is
> telling you: don't change what's right now, it's fine and not broken, so
> don't try to fix anything! :)
>
> Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the theory that oslo.config "looks
> nicer" than oslo-config. But why do we have to care so much? Seriously,
> don't we have something more important to do??? How many distro already
> picked-up the dash instead of the proposed dot, and thought this
> packaging part was already done? How many human hours are you proposing
> to waste here, in unnecessary added work, just because "it looks nicer"?
> You even wrote: "I don't think there's necessarily a standard for naming
> these things", so why bother?
>
> As for the version numbering, that's going to be an ugly added epoch in
> the visioning, which doesn't show in the file names. Eg, the package
> version will have to be 1:1.1.0-1. While I hate these, it's unavoidable,
> and we have already so many of them in the Openstack packages. I've lost
> any kind of hope a long time ago for upstream authors to have consistent
> (eg: always increasing) version numbers anyway, and it's not such a big
> deal.
>
> Again like I wrote on IRC, I've expressed my opinion, feel free to
> ignore it if you like, and go ahead with the rename. Distributions
> should adapt to upstream changes anyway. But if you do, please remember
> that we, downstream distribution maintainers, have to deal with such
> painful changes. I strongly feel that we should try to keep such kind of
> last minute changes *before* a freeze, as this is typically what should
> *not* be granted a freeze exception, IMO.
>
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
With kind regards,
Sascha Peilicke
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)