Open Stack

Dirk Müller wrote:
> Hi Russel,
>
>> I'm just kind of curious ... as both the RDO and SUSE folks look closer
>> at this, how big are the differences?
>
>  From the overall big picture, we're doing pretty much the same thing.
> We have both a tool chain to continuously track changes as they happen
> in upstream git, packaging that up and building binary packages there,
> testing them in an isolated area with a tempest-like run and when that
> succeeds, promote them into the respective stable trees for operators
> to consume.
>
> In my personal view, there are surprisingly many overlapping
> activities where collaborating makes sense and could save duplicated
> effort on both sides.
>
> However, the devil is a bit in the details: Right now there are
> differences in the Fedora and openSUSE python packaging guidelines
> that are leading to "almost the same but slightly different" .spec
> files. We're looking at unifying those differences up to a point where
> the remaining diff, should be anything left, can be handled by a post
> processing tool that just generates the distro variant of the spec
> file from the upstream spec file.
>
> Just to give you an example (this is not an exhaustive list):
> - SUSE requires the use of a spdx.org standardized License: tag in the
> spec file, RDO uses something else
> - SUSE requires packages to be called python-$pypi_name, while Fedora
> escapes more things from the pypi name ('.', '_' and '+' are replaced
> by '-' and the name is lowercased). This adds up in differences of
> requires/provides/obsoletes/conflicts and so on. This can be likely
> solved by substitution and by %if sections, we just need to work on
> that.
> - Indenting and whitespacing rules seem to be slightly different
> between the distros
>
> There are also some conventional changes (in some cases the RDO spec
> file is more correctly packaged than the SUSE variant or vice versa)
> and those can be easily resolved on a case by case base, and that will
> immediately help both user bases.
>
>> If instead it seems
>> the differences are minor enough that combining efforts is a win for
>> everyone, then that's even better, but I don't see it as the required
>> outcome here personally.
>
> Right. We've started with an open discussion and not started with any
> of those two outcomes in mind already. I think thats also why we
> agreed to start with a "green field" and not seed the repos with any
> of the distro's existing spec files.
>
> To me it looks promising that we can mechanically compile the $distro
> policy conformant .spec file from the canonical upstream naming, and
> at some point that compile step might end up being a "cp".

An example of some specs already doing this (they are built using the 
cheetah template engine/style):

https://github.com/stackforge/anvil/tree/master/conf/templates/packaging/specs

They are turned into 'normal' spec files (the compilation part) during 
build time.

Perhaps something similar can be done (ideally using jinja2 or better, 
since cheetah the project seems to be mostly dead...)

>
>
> Dirk
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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