Open Stack

On 01/29/2015 05:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 01/24/2015 02:01 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 07:48 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've just noticed that oslo.log made it to global-requirements.txt 9
>>>> days ago. How come are we still adding some name.spaced oslo libs?
>>>> Wasn't the outcome of the discussion in Paris that we shouldn't do that
>>>> anymore, and that we should be using oslo-log instead of oslo.log?
>>>>
>>>> Is three something that I am missing here?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>>>
>>> The naming is described in the spec:
>>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/kilo/drop-namespace-packages.html
>>>
>>> tl;dr - We did it this way to make life easier for the packagers.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply.
>>
>> Well, you're not making the life of *package maintainers* more easy,
>> that's in fact the opposite way, I'm afraid.
>>
>> The Debian policy is that Python module packages should be named after
>> the import statement in a source file. Meaning that if we do:
>>
>> import oslo_db
>>
>> then the package should be called python-oslo-db. This means that I will
>> have to rename all the Debian packages to remove the dot and put a dash
>> instead. But by doing so, if OpenStack upstream is keeping the old
>> naming convention, then all the requirements.txt will be "wrong" (by
>> wrong, I mean from my perspective as a package maintainer), and the
>> automated dependency calculation of dh_python2 will put package names
>> with dots instead of dashes.
>>
>> So, what is going to happen, is that I'll have to, for each and every
>> package, build a dictionary of translations in debian/pydist-overrides.
> 
> That's unfortunate, but you're the only packager who seems to have this
> issue.
> 
> I've already spent 2 months more time working on this transition than I
> planned, so I'm not planning to do anything else disruptive with it this
> cycle. If it remains a problem, or some of the other packagers support
> renaming the packages, we can discuss it at the L summit to be done
> during the L cycle.
> 
> Doug

Hi Doug,

I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. And finally, I
don't think it's as bad as I previously thought.

What I could do is the opposite of what I wrote above. Which is, package
oslo.db as python-oslo.db and just add a Provides: python-oslo-db, and
that's it. Since we have oslo.db in the requirements.txt, the automated
dh_python2 dependency calculation will only add python-oslo.db in the
Depends: of the packages.

The only thing is that I have already uploaded python-oslo-context (with
a dash), and this has to be fixed, but that's only a single lib, so it
should be fine. I'll have to synchronize with guys from Canonical about
this, so we are doing the same thing on both distro.

Sorry for waiving hard for a false positive,

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: By the way, I'm *very* happy that you did all the work of moving
away from the namespace, Doug. Thanks a lot for that huge work!