Re: Creating a new named official debian repository for OpenStack backports (Uploading all of OpenStack to backports)
On 03/11/2014 04:09 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> This is something we encounter in VoIP, too, where upstreams fork their
> dependencies and bundle them in their code
>
> My feeling is that if they fork a dependency or become really tightly
> coupled with it, maybe they should rename it or import it into their
> source tree somehow.
That's not the problem I encounter. There's never embedded python
modules in OpenStack.
It's just that upstream also work on these dependencies sometimes, or
that some dependencies are simply evolving and upstream supports the new
version, but only on the *next* version of OpenStack. The stable version
doesn't move on supporting the new python module.
On 03/11/2014 04:28 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Have you considered solving this using the way we usually allow
> several versions of the same software in Debian, that is, by
> suffixing the package name with the version? (gcc4.7, gcc4.8)
This doesn't work for Python modules. Only a single version can be
installed at once. Also, I do not control many of these python modules,
some aren't maintained by the OpenStack team. It would also be too much
work, IMO.
> I'm not completely convinced that we need several versions of
> OpenStack at the same time in a backports-like repository, but if you
> want to achieve that, that's a way that doesn't involve separate
> repositories for each release.
How would you do it then? I don't think it's realistic to, on each
release, rename about 80 .deb files for the core packages, just to have
version numbers. This would be *very* messy, and loss of time for the
FTP masters, and error prone for package maintainers (because of the
need to get the Replaces: / Provides: / Breaks: right on all packages to
make upgrade working).
On 03/11/2014 08:40 PM, "Steffen Möller" wrote:
> If we had a Debian PPA already, then this is how we would use it,
> right?
I'd say: it would depend on which package. For example, I currently
would need only a single version of python-babel for both Havana and
Icehouse, so uploading to the normal wheezy-backports would be the thing
to do, and then both wheezy-havana and wheezy-icehouse would declare
that they just *use* the python-babel from wheezy-backports. At least,
that's what Ganneff wrote in his last year PPAMAIN design description
mail to debian-devel.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: