Open Stack

On 11/12/2014 02:35 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 02:40 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
>> On 12 November 2014 18:17, Matthias Runge <mrunge at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/14 10:53, Jiri Tomasek wrote:
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for writing this up!
>>>>> The Storyboard project has successfully integrated these tools into
>>>>> the OpenStack CI environment.
>>> OpenStack CI and distributors are different, because OpenStack CI does
>>> not distribute software.
>>>
>> Ah, I wasn't clear; my concern was whether the tools chosen would be
>> compatible with the CI environment. I'm hoping that distribution of the
>> tools isn't our concern (see below).
> u
>>>> Using javascript tooling (yeoman, grunt, bower, etc.) has this issue of
>>>> being dependent on nodejs which if I recall correctly is causing
>>>> problems for packagers as some versions of these tools require different
>>>> nodejs versions - please Mathias correct me if I am wrong. I know this
>>>> discussion has been here before, but using these tools is necessary for
>>>> effective development. So we need to resolve the problem asap.
>>>> Storyboard does not have this issue as it is infra thing.
>>> As far as I know, those tools don't require different nodejs versions.
>>> But: we can not have different node.js versions installed at the same
>>> time. I assume, this is true for all distributions. Creating and
>>> maintaining parallel installable versions just sucks and causes many
>>> issues.
>>>
>> I believe the nodeenv method of installing node solves this, as it's
>> entirely local to the development environment.
>>
> Just for the record, I believe that we should chose the tools that make
> sense for making our software, as long as it's not physically impossible
> for them to be packaged. This means we should absolutely not use things
> that require multiple versions of node to be needed. The nodejs that's
> in trusty is new enough to work with all of the modern javascript tool
> chain things needed for this, so other than the various javascript tools
> and libraries not being packaged in the distros yet, it should be fine.
>
> That a bunch of javascript libraries will need to be distro pacakged
> should not be a blocker (although I don't think that anyone is saying it
> is) That is, after all, the important work the distros do. At this
> point, given the popularity of javascript and javascript tooling, I'm
> pretty sure the problem is going to have to be solved at some point.
+1, I am really glad this has been said.
>
>> I will have to go through all dependencies and do a review, if those are
>>> acceptable for inclusion e.g in Fedora. The same is true for Thomas
>>> Goirand for inclusion in Debian.
>>>
>>>> Petr Belanyi has added optional jshint install for js linting into
>>>> Horizon and it installs nodejs as it depends on it. Could this approach
>>>> work for our need of js tooling too? [1]
>>> Sigh, this nonsense doesn't go away? This is the third time the same
>>> issue comes up.
>>>
>>> jshint is NOT free software.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js#L19
>>> <https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/src/jshint.js#L19>
>>
>> They're trying to resolve that https://github.com/jshint/jshint/issues/1234
>>
>> But regardless, jshint doesn't have to be installed from a Linux
>> repository; it's usually installed using npm alongside the other node tools.
>>
>>
>>      Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Jiri