[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Proposal for a new tool: dlrn-repo
openstack at nemebean.com
Tue Jun 14 13:53:29 UTC 2016
On 06/13/2016 05:58 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
> On 13 June 2016 at 21:29, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
>> So our documented repo setup steps are three curls, a sed, and a
>> multi-line bash command. And the best part? That's not even what we
>> test. The commands we actually use in tripleo.sh --repo-setup consist
>> of the following: three curls, four seds, and (maybe) the same
>> multi-line bash command. Although whether that big list of packages in
>> includepkgs is actually up to date with what we're testing is anybody's
>> guess because without actually plugging both into a diff tool you
>> probably can't visually find any differences.
> Looking at the docs I think we should remove the list of packages
> altogether, what we document for people trying to use tripleo should
> only include the current-tripleo and deps repositories, as we know
> this has passed a periodic CI job. This would reduce the documented
> process too just 2 curls. The only place we need to worry about
> pulling certain packages from /current is in CI and for devs who need
> the absolute most up to date tripleo packages in these two cases
> tripleo.sh should be used.
This actually touches on another point that I forgot to mention in my
initial email, which is that I want to reduce the divergence between the
developer workflow and the user one. As long as we have developers
using completely different tools to deploy their environments it's going
to be hard to get them to care about the user tools. tripleo.sh should
be a thin wrapper around the documented deploy process, not something
that is required. IMNSHO, of course.
>> What is my point? That this whole process is overly complicated and
>> error-prone. If you miss one of those half dozen plus commands you're
>> going to end up with a broken repo setup. As one of the first things
>> that a new user has to do in TripleO, this is a pretty poor introduction
>> to the project.
> Yup, couldn't agree more here, the simpler we can make things for a
> new user the better
>> My proposal is an rdo-release-esque project that will handle the repo
>> setup for you, except that since dlrn doesn't really deal in releases I
>> think the -repo name makes more sense. Here's a first pass at such a
>> tool: https://github.com/cybertron/dlrn-repo
>> This would reduce the existing commands in tripleo.sh from:
>> sudo sed -i -e 's%priority=.*%priority=30%' $REPO_PREFIX/delorean-deps.repo
>> sudo curl -o $REPO_PREFIX/delorean.repo
>> sudo sed -i -e 's%priority=.*%priority=20%' $REPO_PREFIX/delorean.repo
>> sudo curl -o $REPO_PREFIX/delorean-current.repo
>> sudo sed -i -e 's%priority=.*%priority=10%'
>> sudo sed -i 's/\[delorean\]/\[delorean-current\]/'
>> sudo /bin/bash -c "cat <<-EOF>>$REPO_PREFIX/delorean-current.repo
>> sudo yum -y install yum-plugin-priorities
>> sudo yum install -y http://tripleo.org/dlrn-repo.rpm # or wherever
>> sudo dlrn-repo tripleo-current
>> As you can see in the readme it also supports the stable branch repos or
>> running against latest master of everything.
>> Overall I think this is clearly a better user experience, and as an
>> added bonus it would allow us to use the exact same code for repo
>> management on the user side and in CI, which we can't have with a
>> developer-specific tool like tripleo.sh.
>> There's plenty left to do before this would be fully integrated (import
>> to TripleO, package, update docs, update CI), so I wanted to solicit
>> some broader input before pursuing it further.
> I'm a little on the fence about this, I think the main problem you
> bring up is the duplication of the includepkgs list, which I think we
> can just remove from the docs, so whats left is the ugly blurb of
> script in tripleo.sh --repo-setup, using a tool to do this certainly
> improves the code, but does the creation of a new project complicate
> things in its own way?
> If we do go ahead with this the one suggestion I would have is
> delorean is the tool used to create trunk repositories, we shouldn't
> care, it may even change some day, we are just dealing with trunk
Hmm, trunk-repo would be extremely generic. Maybe os-trunk-repo? Are
there plans to use dlrn for non-OpenStack things in the long term?
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev