On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:22:37PM -0500, Ben Nemec wrote: > While looking through the dib v2 changes after the feature branch was merged > to master, I noticed this commit[1], which bring dib-run-parts back into dib > itself. Unfortunately I missed the original proposal to do this, but I have > some concerns about the impact of this change. > > Originally the split was done so that dib-run-parts and one of the > os-*-config projects (looks like os-refresh-config) that depends on it could > be included in a stock distro cloud image without pulling in all of dib. > Note that it is still present in the requirements of orc: > https://github.com/openstack/os-refresh-config/blob/master/requirements.txt#L5 > > Disk space in a distro cloud image is at a premium, so pulling in a project > like diskimage-builder to get one script out of it was not acceptable, at > least from what I was told at the time. > > I believe this was done so a distro cloud image could be used with Heat out > of the box, hence the heat tag on this message. I don't know exactly what > happened after we split out dib-utils, so I'm hoping someone can confirm > whether this requirement still exists. I think Steve was the one who made > the original request. There were a lot of Steves working on Heat at the > time though, so it's possible I'm wrong. ;-)
I don't think I'm the Steve you're referring to, but I do have some additional info as a result of investigating this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bug/1673144 It appears we have three different versions of dib-run-parts on the undercloud (and, presumably overcloud nodes) at the moment, which is a pretty major headache from a maintenance/debugging perspective. However we resolve this, *please* can we avoid permanently forking the tool, as e.g in that bug, where do I send the patch to fix leaking profiledir directories? What package needs an update? What is installing the script being run that's not owned by any package? Yes, I know the answer to some of those questions, but I'm trying to point out duplicating this script and shipping it from multiple repos/packages is pretty horrible from a maintenance perspective, especially for new or casual contributors. If we have to fork it, I'd suggest we should rename the script to avoid the confusion I outline in the bug above, e.g one script -> one repo -> one package? Thanks! Steve __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
