[openstack-dev] [release][requirements][packaging][summit] input needed on summit discussion about global requirements

Matthew Thode prometheanfire at gentoo.org
Mon Apr 18 15:23:37 UTC 2016

On 04/18/2016 08:24 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
>>>> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email
>>>> now? That will help in the framing of the conversation.
>>> I won't be at summit and I feel pretty strongly about this topic, so
>>> I'll throw out my comments:
>>> I agree with the basic premise: In the big tent universe co-
>>> installability is holding us back and is a huge cost in terms of spent
>>> energy. In a world where service isolation is desirable and common
>>> (whether by virtualenv, containers, different hosts, etc) targeting an
>>> all-in-one install seems only to serve the purposes of all-in-one rpm-
>>> or deb-based installations.
>>> Many (most?) people won't be doing those kinds of installations. If all-in-
>>> one installations are important to the rpm- and deb- based distributions
>>> then _they_ should be resolving the dependency issues local to their own
>>> infrastructure (or realizing that it is too painful and start
>>> containerizing or otherwise as well).
>>> I think making these changes will help to improve and strengthen the
>>> boundaries and contracts between services. If not technically then
>>> at least socially, in the sense that the negotiations that people
>>> make to get things to work are about what actually matters in their
>>> services, not unwinding python dependencies and the like.
>>> A lot of the basics of getting this to work are already in place in
>>> devstack. One challenge I've run into the past is when devstack
>>> plugin A has made an assumption about having access to a python
>>> script provided by devstack plugin B, but it's not on $PATH or its
>>> dependencies are not in the site-packages visible to the current
>>> context. The solution here is to use full paths _into_ virtenvs.
>> As Chris said, doing virtualenvs on the Devstack side for services is
>> pretty much there. The team looked at doing this last year, then stopped
>> due to operator feedback.
>> One of the things that gets a little weird (when using devstack for
>> development) is if you actually want to see the impact of library
>> changes on the environment. As you'll need to make sure you loop and
>> install those libraries into every venv where they are used. This
>> forward reference doesn't really exist. So some tooling there will be
>> needed.
>> Middleware that's pushed from one project into another (like Ceilometer
>> -> Swift) is also a funny edge case that I think get funnier here.
>> Those are mostly implementation details, that probably have work
>> arounds, but would need people on them.
>>  From a strategic perspective this would basically make traditional Linux
>> Packaging of OpenStack a lot harder. That might be the right call,
>> because traditional Linux Packaging definitely suffers from the fact
>> that everything on a host needs to be upgraded at the same time. For
>> large installs of OpenStack (especially public cloud cases) traditional
>> packages are definitely less used.
>> However Linux Packaging is how a lot of people get exposed to software.
>> The power of onboarding with apt-get / yum install is a big one.
>> I've been through the ups and downs of both approaches so many times now
>> in my own head, I no longer have a strong preference beyond the fact
>> that we do one approach today, and doing a different one is effort to
>> make the transition.
>> 	-Sean
> It is also worth noting that according to the OpenStack User Survey [0]
> 56% of deployments use "Unmodifed packages from the operating system".
> Granted it was a small sample size (302 responses to that question)
> but it is worth keeping this in mind as we talk about moving the burden
> to packagers.
> 0 - 
> https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April-2016-User-Survey-Report.pdf (page 
> 36)
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
To add to this, I'd also note that I as a packager would likely stop
packaging Openstack at whatever release this goes into.  While the
option to package and ship a virtualenv installed to /usr/local or /opt
exists bundling is not something that should be supported given the
issues it can have (update cadence and security issues mainly).

-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160418/0af1fd54/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list