[openstack-dev] [Horizon] How do we move forward with xstatic releases?

Richard Jones r1chardj0n3s at gmail.com
Sun Mar 20 20:26:38 UTC 2016

Unfortunately none of this discussion solves the substantive issue which is
that we cannot release an xstatic package without breaking the gate.

We currently have one solution that's a close to viable as we've been able
to get: move the version pinning for xstatic packages out of
upper-constraints and into Horizon's repository, and hope that the
app-catalog server and Horizon stay in step or that they're never installed
on the same debian/redhat system (or if they *are* then one of them is
installed in a virtualenv).


On 17 March 2016 at 19:00, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:

> On 03/17/2016 07:23 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
> > There's a basic difference here though. Your traditional "installed
> > components" are pieces of software and data used *by programs on that
> > system.*
> >
> > The components we're talking about here are, as far as the system is
> > concerned, opaque data to be transmitted over HTTP(S) to a web browser
> > client which then makes use of that data in some manner.
> >
> > There are no cross-program compatibility issues stemming from having
> > multiple different versioned copies of such client-side files on a
> > system
> The same way, we could have multiple version of fonts, tzdata, SSL root
> certificates and so on. There wouldn't be any compatibility issues.
> Though it's still not the right thing to do at a distribution level.
> Have you noticed also that in the Windows world, each program carries
> its .dll, which are supposed to be shared object, but in fact, they
> aren't shared? Yes, it is easier to do so.
> > - this is why the web development world has standardised on
> > tooling that *makes it easy to do so*. Different client-side web
> > applications *should* be able to use different versions of components.
> The same was as for shared .so libraries, that's not the correct way to
> do things. Even though the JavaScript objects aren't executed by the
> system (well, if we forget that nodejs exists), there's still potential
> bugs and security problems with them, and they may require maintenance.
> > xstatic shoe-horns that freedom of client-side application component
> > usage into a one-size-must-fit-all world that fundamentally only exists
> > because programs on a system can get confused when multiple versions are
> > installed on that system[1].
> I wouldn't say it this way. To me, they are just tools which makes it
> easy for us to stop the duplication madness of the same files.
> Have a look:
> # apt-file search jquery.js | grep -v doc | wc -l
> 128
> This is 127 bugs which should be fixed currently with the embedded
> jquery. I hardly see how one could argue this is a good thing. I hope we
> can be better citizens than this.
> Cheers,
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160321/2852de2c/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list