Open Stack

All of the options seem to contain inconsistencies depending on how one
sees distributions.

Using "$distro_based" (fedora_based, ubuntu_based, suse_based), one could
argue that Fedora is based on RH and Ubuntu is based on Debian. However,
enough differences exist between variants that we need to account for them.
We just use notes for RHEL/CentOS/Fedora, but publish completely separate
versions of the guide for Ubuntu and Debian. Also, using "$distro_based"
opens up the potential for our audience to assume the Ubuntu guide works on
variants such as Linux Mint.

Using "$package_based" (rpm_based, deb_based) opens up the potential for
our audience to assume the RPM guide works on variants such as Oracle
Linux. Furthermore, both RH and SuSE use RPMs but otherwise differ
significantly.

Using "$packagemanager_based" (yum_based, apt_based, zypper_based), opens
up the potential for our audience to assume the YUM guide works on any
distribution that uses it. Fedora moving to DNF further complicates the
situation.

I suggest we simply use the names of the distributions that the guide
supports without the version number. For example, "ubuntu" covers Ubuntu,
"fedora" covers Fedora, and "rhel" covers RHEL. The latter could also
include distributions very similar to RHEL such as CentOS and Scientific
Linux, but we don't specifically mention them nor test the guide using
them. For the most part, only host configuration, infrastructure services,
OpenStack package sources, and possibly package names should differ among
distributions. Ideally, all distributions should use the same package names
and configuration for OpenStack services. The guide has come close to at
least using the same configuration for OpenStack services over the last
couple releases. However, the only official way to unify the installation
guide and minimize conditionals involves developing a set of standards for
packaging under the "big tent" concept.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> I've updated the RST Conversion spec:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191520/
>
> Also, I created patches to get us moving forward:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191513
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191516/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/191519/
>
> Tom asked how to name things. Right now, the patch uses fedora_based,
> ubuntu_based, suse_based and adds those also to the directories. We can
> decide on the names for publishing later as well but should stay with the
> tag names since this means changes in many source files.
>
> I'm not a friend of the "zypper/apt" names in the URL since they are not
> really clear - and thus the openSUSE and SLES Install Guide gets published
> as draft under http://docs.openstack.org/draft/install-guide-suse_based .
>
> Has anybody a better naming scheme?
>
> Andreas
> --
>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
>   SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>    GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton,
>        HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20150615/6da7ee4f/attachment.html>