On 17 February 2015 at 22:00, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamam...@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
> hi, > > i want to add an extra requirement specific to OVS-agent. > (namely, I want to add ryu for ovs-ofctl-to-python blueprint. [1] > but the question is not specific to the blueprint.) > to avoid messing deployments without OVS-agent, such a requirement > should be per-agent/driver/plugin/etc. however, there currently > seems no standard mechanism for such a requirement. > > some ideas: > > a. don't bother to make it per-agent. > add it to neutron's requirements. (and global-requirement) > simple, but this would make non-ovs plugin users unhappy. > > b. make devstack look at per-agent extra requirements file in neutron tree. > eg. neutron/plugins/$Q_AGENT/requirements.txt > > c. move OVS agent to a separate repository, just like other > after-decomposition vendor plugins. and use requirements.txt there. > for longer term, this might be a way to go. but i don't want to > block my work until it happens. > > d. follow the way how openvswitch is installed by devstack. > a downside: we can't give a jenkins run for a patch which introduces > an extra requirement. (like my patch for the mentioned blueprint [2]) > > i think b. is the most reasonable choice, at least for short/mid term. > > any comments/thoughts? > One thing that I want to ensure we are clear on is about the agent's OpenFlow communication strategy going forward, because that determines how we make a decision based on the options you have outlined: do we enforce the use of ryu while ovs-ofctl goes away from day 0? Or do we provide an 'opt-in' type of approach where users can explicitly choose if/when to adopt ryu in favor of ovs-ofctl? The latter means that we'll keep both solutions for a reasonable amount of time to smooth the transition process. If we adopt the former (i.e. ryu goes in, ovs-ofctl goes out), then option a) makes sense to me, but I am not sure how happy deployers, and packagers are going to be welcoming this approach. There's already too much going on in Kilo right now :) If we adopt the latter, then I think it's desirable to have two separate configurations with which we test the agent. This means that we'll have a new job (besides the existing ones) that runs the agent with ryu instead of ovs-ofctl. This means that option d) is the viable one, where DevStack will have to install the dependency based on some configuration variable that is determined by the openstack-infra project definition. Thoughts? Cheers, Armando > > YAMAMOTO Takashi > > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ovs-ofctl-to-python > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153946/ > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
