Open Stack

On 28/07/15 09:15 +0000, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
>I do agree, we don’t depend or are cleaning the other clients out of the glance
>dependencies as well and I think swift should not be there either.
>
> 
>
>The default store is filesystem store and if something is depending on the
>actual store clients it should be either glance_store or deployer (well for
>example our gate) glance itself should not have hard dependencies for ‘em.

Agreed!

William, would it be possible for you to spend some more time and
create a single patch that removes all non-required dependencies?

Cheers,
Flavio

>
> 
>
>-          Erno
>
> 
>
>From: William M Edmonds [mailto:edmondsw at us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:42 PM
>To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>Subject: [openstack-dev] [glance] Removing python-swiftclient from
>requirements.txt
>
> 
>
>python-swiftclient is only needed by operators that are using the swift
>backend, so it really doesn't belong in requirements.txt. Listing it in
>requirements forces all operators to install it, even if they're not going to
>use the swift backend. When I proposed a change [1] to move this from
>requirements to test-requirements (would still be needed there because of tests
>using the swift backend), others raised concerns about the impact this could
>have on operators who use the swift backend today and would be upgrading to
>Liberty. I believe everyone agreed this should not be in requirements, but the
>fact is that it has been, so operators may have (incorrectly) been depending on
>that during upgrades. If we remove it in Liberty, and there are changes in
>Liberty that require a newer version of swiftclient, how would those operators
>know that they need to upgrade swiftclient?
>
>The optional dependencies spec [2] could definitely help here. I don't think we
>should have to wait for that, though. This is an issue we obviously already
>have today for other backends, which indicates folks can deal with it without
>an optional dependencies implementation.
>
>This would be a new concern for operators using the default swift backend,
>though. So how do we get the message out to those operators? And do we need to
>put out a message about this change in Liberty and then wait until Mitaka to
>actually remove this, or can we go ahead and remove in Liberty?
>
>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203242
>[2] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/liberty/
>optional-deps.html
>
>-Matthew
>

>__________________________________________________________________________
>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


-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150728/502831a5/attachment.pgp>