[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
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
> > for example. When building our images, we can pull (most of) regular
> > packages from the base OS, but everything with "oslo" in its name is on
> > 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
> 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.
> they are also directly installable via pip.
> building rpms in the first place is a mangaince burden you do not need if
> you are
> doing containerised delivery they only add value if you are supporting non
> delivery via standard package manages.
Packages do not lose any of their value when used inside containers, and
the same arguments apply to this case. And no, let's not seriously talk
about pip install.
> so for metal3 i dont see that as a vaild argument as in your case redhat
> is already going
> to be doing the packageing for the OSP product line irrispective of the
> of metal3 in a product so using olso wont have any additional downstream
Metal3 is OpenShift, not OpenStack. You're suggesting exactly the thing
that turns people against Ironic: require OpenStack.
> form a distro/downstream perpective we still need to maintain the python
> libs so using oslo
> is no larger burden the using a different pip lib that is not already
> packaged in rhel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...