Hi, > I think the goal of this split is well explained by Sandro in the first > mails of the chain: > > 1. Downstream packaging > 2. Tagging the delivery properly as a library > 3. Adding as a project on pypi
Not really, because (1) and (2) are *a consequence* of the repo split. Not a cause. Please correct me if I'm reading wrong but he's saying: - I want tarballs - To produce tarballs, I want a separate repo, and separate repos have (1), (2) as requirements. So this is where I'm going: producing a tarball of pyc does *not* require a separate repo. If we don't need a new repo, we don't need to do all the things that a separate repo requires. Now: > OpenStack provide us a tarballs web page[1] for each branch of each project > of the infrastructure. > Then, projects like Delorean can allow us to download theses tarball master > branches, create the > packages and host them in a target repository for each one of the rpm-like > distributions[2]. I am pretty sure > that there is something similar for Ubuntu. This looks more accurate: you're actually not asking for a tarball. You're asking for being compatible with a system that produces tarballs off a repo. This is very different :) So questions: we have a standalone mirror of the repo, that could be used for this purpose. Say we move the mirror to OSt infra, would things work? > Everything is done in a very straightforward and standarized way, because > every repo has its own > deliverable. You can look how they are packaged and you won't see too many > differences between > them. Packaging a python-midonetclient it will be trivial if it is separated > in a single repo. It will be But create a lot of other problems in development. With a very important difference: the pain created by the mirror solution is solved cheaply with software (e.g.: as you know, with a script). OTOH, the pain created by splitting the repo is paid in very costly human resources. > complicated and we'll have to do tricky things if it is a directory inside > the midonet repo. And I am not > sure if Ubuntu and RDO community will allow us to have weird packaging > metadata repos. I do get this point and it's a major concern, IMO we should split to a different conversation as it's not related to where PYC lives, but to a more general question: do we really need a repo per package? Like Guillermo and myself said before, the midonet repo generate 4 packages, and this will grow. If having a package per repo is really a strong requirement, there is *a lot* of work ahead, so we need to start talking about this now. But like I said, it's orthogonal to the PYC points above. g
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
