Open Stack

Sean Mooney wrote:
> 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.

What's preventing that from happening ? What is distro policy around 
general-purpose but openstack-community-maintained Python libraries like 
stevedore or tooz ?

FWIW in Ubuntu all oslo libraries are packaged as part of the "base OS 
repos", and therefore indistinguishable from other Python libraries in 
terms of reuse. The 'cloud archive' is just an additive repository that 
allows older LTS users to use the most recent OpenStack releases.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)