[openstack-dev] [Fuel][Fuel-Packaging][Fuel-CI][Fuel-Infra] How to Deal with CI Failures Induced by Libraries Requirements Drift

Vladimir Kuklin vkuklin at mirantis.com
Mon Jul 13 08:56:44 UTC 2015


You have a very valid point, but the is a problem here - by doing it this
way we are breaking developers' workflow which is based on using such
repositories as pypi, rubygem, etc.
If you convince developers (and I guess not only Fuel ones as we are moving
towards community engagement) to switch their workflow - I have no


Actually, what we are doing is that we are freezing almost all the packages
(except for upstream linux maintenance updates that should not change ABIs)
thus having this drift at least constrained somehow. And this is how you
control your upper bounds - you just do not push anything new into it.

Let me provide an example why your suggestion does not work.

Imagine, we have Debian Sid repository configured for our installations (or
use some other 3rd party not strictly controlled mirror). It will work fine
until you push new oslo package which is conflicting with your stuff like
keystone, for example. And what is more important - you have already
released this keystone and you CANNOT control requirements of it, you were
not able to set them when you were working on the release because there is
actually no time machine. This means that you need either to disable this
3rd party repo or to freeze in some state or you will have the same problem
as with eggs.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bartlomiej Piotrowski <
bpiotrowski at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Freezing every moving part is complete overkill and puts a heavy burden on
> devops
> team as well as infra itself. The fix couldn't be more simple: just put
> upper
> bounds in requirements.
> > 1) if there is a new conflicting version, you need to set this
> upper-bound, thus you need to modify bits which get released
> It should be done as part of hard code freeze.
> > 2) you are actually testing your code by linking it with libraries which
> are different from those that users are really using when running your code
> Packages dependencies should reflect these set in requirements.
> > 3) even if you specify an upper bound (or even fix the version) for this
> particular library, you may still fetch its newer dependency implicitly (by
> traversing indirect dependencies) with which you will be linking your
> libraries and which will actually be different from the code that you (and
> your users) use
> This can be actually said about anything, including base system Fuel is
> running. We simply do not support such setups.
> > 4) you may also break production installation if you fix some library
> version as it may not exist in the code bundle which gets delivered to your
> users as a set of package
> See 2.
> BP
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Yours Faithfully,
Vladimir Kuklin,
Fuel Library Tech Lead,
Mirantis, Inc.
+7 (495) 640-49-04
+7 (926) 702-39-68
Skype kuklinvv
35bk3, Vorontsovskaya Str.
Moscow, Russia,
www.mirantis.com <http://www.mirantis.ru/>
vkuklin at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150713/f20dbc5e/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list