Open Stack

Dear colleagues,

At the moment we have several places where we configure multiple rpm/deb
repositories. Those are:

   1. Web UI (cluster settings tab) where we define repos for cluster
   deployment
   2. Fuel-menu (bootstrap section) where we define repos for building
   ubuntu bootstrap image
   3. Fuel-mirror where we define repos that are to be cloned (full or
   partial mirrors)

I'd prefer all these places to provide the same UX. By that I mean that
these components should use the same input data structure like this [0],
i.e. a flat list of fully independent repositories (see an example below).
First repo in the list is supposed to be a base OS repo (i.e. contains base
packages like libc).

[
 {
    type: deb,
    url: some-url,
    section: some-section,
    suite: some-suite,
    priority: some-priority
  },
  {
    type: deb,
    url: another-url,
    section: another-section,
    suite: another-suite,
    priority: another-priority
  },
...
]

I'd like to focus on the fact that these repositories should be defined
independently (no base url, no base suite, etc.) That makes little sense to
speculate about consistency of a particular repository. We only should talk
about consistency of the whole list of repositories together.

I'll try to explain. In the real world we usually deal with sets of
repositories which look like this:

http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-updates/
http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty-security/
http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0/
http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-updates/
http://mirror.fuel-infra.org/mos-repos/ubuntu/8.0/dists/mos8.0-security/

As you can see these repositories have common hosts and base suites and it
instills us to think that repositories should not be defined separately
which is wrong. This special case does not break the whole approach. It is
just a special case. Repositories are nothing more than just sets of
packages that can depend on each other forming a tree when taken together.
Package relation does matter, not repository location, not suite name.
Parsing package tree for a set of repositories we can easily figure out
whether this set is consistent or not (e.g. python-packetary allows to do
this).

Taking into account the above, I'd say UI should allow a user to define
repositories independently not forcing to use special patterns like suite +
suite-updates + suite-security, not forcing repositories to be located on
the same host. That means we should modify fuel-menu bootstrap section
which currently allows a user to define a base url that is then used to
form a group of repos (base, base-updates, base-security). Besides, it
contradicts to our use case when we put mosX.Y locally on the master node
while mosX.Y-updates and mosX.Y-security are supposed to be available
online.

What do you guys think of that?


[0]
https://github.com/openstack/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/fixtures/openstack.yaml#L2006-L2053


Vladimir Kozhukalov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151210/f15a23d8/attachment.html>