[openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
derekh at redhat.com
Tue Jun 9 13:33:52 UTC 2015
On 09/06/15 10:37, Dirk Müller wrote:
> Hi Derek,
> 2015-06-09 0:34 GMT+02:00 Derek Higgins <derekh at redhat.com>:
>> This patch would result in 80 packaging repositories being pulled into
> I personally would prefer to start with fewer but common packages
> between all RPM distros (is there more than Red Hat and SUSE ?) than
> starting the process with 80, but I wouldn't object to that.
I selected these 80 to move all of what RDO is currently maintaining on
gerrithub to review.openstack.org, this was perhaps too big a set and in
RDO we instead may need to go hybrid.
>> o exactly what namespace/prefix to use in the naming, I've seen lots of
>> opinions but I'm not clear if we have come to a decision
>> o Should we use "rdo" in the packaging repo names and not "rpm"? I think
>> this ultimatly depends whether the packaging can be shared between RDO and
>> Suse or not.
> Well, we're (SUSE that is) are interested in sharing the packaging,
> and a non-RDO prefix would be preferred for the upstream coordination
+1, I'd also like to see us share packaging so a non-RDO prefix should
be avoided. I think we have a few possibilities here
1. pull what I've proposed (or a subset of it) into a rpm namespace and
from there work in package to get them to a point where all rpm
interested parties can use them.
2. pull them into an rdo namespace and from there work on convergence,
as each package becomes usable by all interested parties we rename to rpm-
I know renaming is a PITA for infra so maybe move to Attic and import a
new repo if its easier.
3. Same as 2 but start with Suse packaging
> It is all a bit fuzzy for me right now as I'm not entirely
> sure our goals for packaging are necessarily the same (e.g. we have
> the tendency to include patches that have not been merged but are
> proposed upstream and are +1'ed already into our packages should there
> be a pressing need for us to do so (e.g. fixes an important platform
> bug), but maybe we can find enough common goals to make this a
> benificial effort for all of us.
For this specific example I think differences of opinion are ok, we
should provide the tools for each party interest in the packaging can
hook in their own patches (I'm not sure what this would look like yet),
I'm assuming here that we would also have deployer's out there
interested who would have their own custom patches and bug fixes that
they are interested in.
But yes, there will be other differences that I'm sure we'll have to
> There are quite some details to sort out as our packaging is for
> historical and for various policy reasons that we need to stick to
> slightly different than the RDO packaging. I think going over those
> and see how we can merge them in a consolidated effort (or maintain
> two variants together) is the first step IMHO.
+1, maybe we should schedule something in a few days where we could go
though the differences of a specific package and how things could take
> Another important point for us is that we start with equal rights on
> the upstream collaboration (at least on the RPM side, I am fine with
> decoupling and not caring about the deb parts). I'm not overly
> optimistic that a single PTL would be able to cover both the DEB and
> RPM worlds, as I perceive them quite different in details.
yup, seems reasonable to me
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev