[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit



On 04/17/2013 01:05, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 03:58 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> And we do consider a bit more here. Each and every package
>> takes extra space in the various metadata places, like Packages (times
>> number of architectures), our database, our various handling scripts of
>> archive/testing/pts/bugs/whatnot. So we have to decide between an
>> excessive split and something that makes sense.
>>
>> The nova packages consist[1] mostly of one file in /usr/bin with the size
>> between 1500 and 3000 bytes, or worse - one file in /etc between 45 and
>> 222 bytes - or even nothing (nova-volume).
> 
> I am on the side of Russ Allbery here. Ideally, as a developer, I
> shouldn't have to worry about this, too much, and here is IMHO too much.
> The infrastructure problems which Debian runs into shouldn't clash with
> the convenience users either, to the point where Debian would be a very
> special case with packaging different from other distro, and breaking
> existing puppet scripts others are already maintaining (for Debian
> and/or Ubuntu).

Note that every distribution does package nova in a different way:

- In Fedora binary packages are named "openstack-nova-*" (except for
  python-nova).
- Fedora has only 13 binary packages, compared to ~30 binaries in
  Ubuntu.
- Gentoo, Arch only have a single package (though Gentoo doesn't have
  a concept of "binary packages" as far as I know).
- All of Fedora, Gentoo, Arch bundle multiple daemons in a single
  package.

So things already work differently on different distribution.

I also don't think having less binary packages means less convenience:
people who decide to host their own cloud infrastructure most likely
already use a configuration management system such as puppet. Having to
enable some service via a configuration file (or other means) instead of
installing additional packages shouldn't really make a difference. Note
that there already seems to be a configuration file that must be changed[1].

[1]
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/2013-April/002259.html>

>> Lets pick one set out here. nova-compute-*. Those seem to ship config
>> files for compute nodes of different types. lxc, kvm, qemu, whatever.
>> We question two things here: That it is neccessary to split them into
>> one <100byte file per package ones, and that they all have to conflict
>> with each other.
> 
> As you know, a package isn't only made with what files it holds. It also
> contains precious dependencies. By asking to switch to a single package,
> you are removing the possibility to have dependencies that make sense.

Most binary packages don't have additional dependencies as mentioned in
my initial rejection[2].

[2]
<http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/2013-April/002257.html>

> Package: nova-compute-kvm
> Depends: python-libvirt, libvirt-bin, kvm
> 
> I don't want to just document this, OpenStack is complicated enough
> already, adding installation of dependencies as a manual thing matching
> configuration files or debconf values would be annoying.

There are many packages that require this. A random example: mediawiki
depends on php5-mysql | php5-pgsql | php5-sqlite | php5-mysqlnd. Which
one is right depends on the configuration.

Having mediawiki-mysql, mediawiki-pgsql, mediawiki-sqlite, ... instead
would not scale well. It gets really bad if you have more than one
option (mediawiki-{apache2,lighttpd,...}-{mysql,pgsql,...}?).

Ansgar

PS: Maybe it's time to move the discussion back somewhere else?


Reply to: