Open Stack

On 4/6/20 8:16 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:13 PM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org 
> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
> 
>     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
>     <mailto: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 ?
> 
> 
> I don't think such a policy exists.
> 
> I think it's based on the actual usage by non-OpenStack consumers. I can 
> only speculate what prevents them from using e.g. oslo.config or 
> stevedore. Maybe they see that the source and documentation are hosted 
> on openstack.org <http://openstack.org> and assume they're only for 
> OpenStack or somehow require OpenStack (i.e. same problem)?

I want to interject here and mention that the Oslo team actually 
differentiates between things named oslo* and things not named oslo that 
are maintained by the Oslo team. The former are for OpenStack-specific 
logic and are not necessarily designed for broader use. The latter are 
intended as general purpose libraries to be used outside of OpenStack.

This obviously does not help here at all since it just muddies the water 
about what is and is not "for OpenStack", but I think it's important to 
note that this is not an either-or question for Oslo.

> 
> Maybe it's something that docs.opendev.org/stevedore 
> <http://docs.opendev.org/stevedore> and opendev.org/stevedore 
> <http://opendev.org/stevedore> (no openstack) could help fixing?
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> 
>     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)
>