Open Stack

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.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151209/b613a4f7/attachment.html>