On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Terry Wilson <twil...@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > On 04/10/2015 03:57 PM, Terry Wilson wrote: > > > This adds very basic support for setuptools so that the OVS Python > > > lib can be added to PyPI. > > > > Most Python libraries are on PyPI, so it makes sense to put this one > > there, too. Another specific reason this would be helpful is that in > > OpenStack, certain test enviornments are built as Python virtual > > environments, and the contents of those virtualenvs is Python packages > > installed from PyPI. Not having this one there means we can't use this > > library in a set of the test jobs. > > > > Ideally uploading to PyPI would become part of the ovs release process > > whenever a tarball is published. > > Another thing to consider is that the Python library doesn't really depend > on the Open vSwitch release cycle at all. It might make sense to actually > move it to its own repo and do completely separate releases for it. > > ++, this is actually no different than client libraries for OpenStack. Having a separate repository, which releases separately, makes a lot of sense. > > If you don't want to do that but are willing to delegate it, someone > > else (like Terry) could take on the responsibility to do it after an ovs > > release is made. It's not so different than a distro package maintainer > > updating their distro package of this lib. In the case of PyPI, there's > > not really a distro, so it kind of makes sense to me for the upstream to > > "own" keeping it updated. > > I'm ok with doing the PyPI stuff. After it is registered, as long as > someone has their PyPI credentials set up, it should be as easy as just > doing 'make pypi-upload' though. > > Great! > > > This currently uses the Open vSwitch version number and the > > > generated dirs.py, though there is no real reason to tie the > > > Python libraries releases or version numbers to the main project's. > > > > Changing it could cause unnecessary pain since the library is already > > packaged and installed via distro packages using the ovs version number, > > so I think it makes sense to do it the way you have it. > > There is still a bit of bad interaction between packaged and non-packaged > versions even without the version number stuff. The dirs.py file that would > be generated during packaging processes would be different from the one > that would be in PyPI. I guess that's the kind of thing you just end up > having to deal with when you mix distro- and PyPI packaging, though. I > couldn't really come up with an acceptable way to reconcile the issue of > 'default paths'. > > Terry > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
