[openstack-dev] [midonet] Split up python-midonetclient

Takashi Yamamoto yamamoto at midokura.com
Thu Dec 10 06:04:12 UTC 2015

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Galo Navarro <galo at midokura.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>> I think the goal of this split is well explained by Sandro in the first
>> mails of the chain:
>> 1. Downstream packaging
>> 2. Tagging the delivery properly as a library
>> 3. Adding as a project on pypi
> Not really, because (1) and (2) are *a consequence* of the repo split. Not a
> cause. Please correct me if I'm reading wrong but he's saying:
> - I want tarballs
> - To produce tarballs, I want a separate repo, and separate repos have (1),
> (2) as requirements.
> So this is where I'm going: producing a tarball of pyc does *not* require a
> separate repo. If we don't need a new repo, we don't need to do all the
> things that a separate repo requires.

in openstack, client libraries usually have a separate release schedules
from servers.  see "Final release for client libraries" in
http://docs.openstack.org/releases/schedules/mitaka.html .
in case we want to align to it, a single all-in-one repository doesn't sound
viable to me.

> Now:
>> OpenStack provide us a tarballs web page[1] for each branch of each
>> project
>> of the infrastructure.
>> Then, projects like Delorean can allow us to download theses tarball
>> master
>> branches, create the
>> packages and host them in a target repository for each one of the rpm-like
>> distributions[2]. I am pretty sure
>> that there is something similar for Ubuntu.
> This looks more accurate: you're actually not asking for a tarball. You're
> asking for being compatible with a system that produces tarballs off a repo.
> This is very different :)
> So questions: we have a standalone mirror of the repo, that could be used
> for this purpose. Say we move the mirror to OSt infra, would things work?
>> Everything is done in a very straightforward and standarized way, because
>> every repo has its own
>> deliverable. You can look how they are packaged and you won't see too many
>> differences between
>> them. Packaging a python-midonetclient it will be trivial if it is
>> separated
>> in a single repo. It will be
> But create a lot of other problems in development. With a very important
> difference: the pain created by the mirror solution is solved cheaply with
> software (e.g.: as you know, with a script). OTOH, the pain created by
> splitting the repo is paid in very costly human resources.
>> complicated and we'll have to do tricky things if it is a directory inside
>> the midonet repo. And I am not
>> sure if Ubuntu and RDO community will allow us to have weird packaging
>> metadata repos.
> I do get this point and it's a major concern, IMO we should split to a
> different conversation as it's not related to where PYC lives, but to a more
> general question: do we really need a repo per package?
> Like Guillermo and myself said before, the midonet repo generate 4 packages,
> and this will grow. If having a package per repo is really a strong
> requirement, there is *a lot* of work ahead, so we need to start talking
> about this now. But like I said, it's orthogonal to the PYC points above.
> g
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list