[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
smooney at redhat.com
Mon Apr 6 11:26:29 UTC 2020
On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 13:14 +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 10:10 +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > > The problem is that oslo libraries are OpenStack-specific. Imagine
> > metal3,
> > > for example. When building our images, we can pull (most of) regular
> > Python
> > > packages from the base OS, but everything with "oslo" in its name is on
> > us.
> > > It's a maintenance burden.
> > what distros dont ship oslo libs?
> > RHEL ships them via the OSP repos
> As part of OpenStack, right.
> > CentOS ship it via RDO
> > Ubunutu has them in the cloud archive
> > SUSE also shiped them via there openstack product although sicne they are
> > nolonger
> > maintaining that goign forward and moveing the k8s based cloud offerings
> > it might be
> > a valid concern there.
> All the same here: oslo libs are parts of OpenStack
> distributions/offerings. Meaning that to install Ironic you need to at
> least enable OpenStack repositories, even if you package Ironic yourself.
ya that is true although i think oslo is also a good candiate for standablone reuse
outside of openstack. like placment keystone and ironic are.
so in my perfered world i would love to see oslo in the base os repos.
> > they are also directly installable via pip.
> > building rpms in the first place is a mangaince burden you do not need if
> > you are
> > doing containerised delivery they only add value if you are supporting non
> > containerised
> > delivery via standard package manages.
> Packages do not lose any of their value when used inside containers, and
> the same arguments apply to this case. And no, let's not seriously talk
> about pip install.
we can agree to disagree on that point.
as someone who prefers to install python packages from souce/pip or viewpoint will difer
on there value.
> > so for metal3 i dont see that as a vaild argument as in your case redhat
> > is already going
> > to be doing the packageing for the OSP product line irrispective of the
> > supprot/sale
> > of metal3 in a product so using olso wont have any additional downstream
> > cost.
> Metal3 is OpenShift, not OpenStack. You're suggesting exactly the thing
> that turns people against Ironic: require OpenStack.
well im suggestion we also woudl not want ironci to require openshift.
and not really i was more thinking we should work to get oslo packaged in base rhel
so that its nolong only shiped in the openstack distro repo and instead availabel
for anywoe to use. i kind of feel sad that oslo is not used that much outside of openstack
as the lib are good quality.
> > form a distro/downstream perpective we still need to maintain the python
> > libs so using oslo
> > is no larger burden the using a different pip lib that is not already
> > packaged in rhel.
More information about the openstack-discuss