On 18/04/2016 13:51, Sean Dague wrote: > On 04/18/2016 08:22 AM, Chris Dent wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sean Dague wrote: >> >>> So if you have strong feelings and ideas, why not get them out in email >>> now? That will help in the framing of the conversation. >> >> I won't be at summit and I feel pretty strongly about this topic, so >> I'll throw out my comments: >> >> I agree with the basic premise: In the big tent universe co- >> installability is holding us back and is a huge cost in terms of spent >> energy. In a world where service isolation is desirable and common >> (whether by virtualenv, containers, different hosts, etc) targeting an >> all-in-one install seems only to serve the purposes of all-in-one rpm- >> or deb-based installations. >> >> Many (most?) people won't be doing those kinds of installations. If all-in- >> one installations are important to the rpm- and deb- based distributions >> then _they_ should be resolving the dependency issues local to their own >> infrastructure (or realizing that it is too painful and start >> containerizing or otherwise as well). >> >> I think making these changes will help to improve and strengthen the >> boundaries and contracts between services. If not technically then >> at least socially, in the sense that the negotiations that people >> make to get things to work are about what actually matters in their >> services, not unwinding python dependencies and the like. >> >> A lot of the basics of getting this to work are already in place in >> devstack. One challenge I've run into the past is when devstack >> plugin A has made an assumption about having access to a python >> script provided by devstack plugin B, but it's not on $PATH or its >> dependencies are not in the site-packages visible to the current >> context. The solution here is to use full paths _into_ virtenvs. > > As Chris said, doing virtualenvs on the Devstack side for services is > pretty much there. The team looked at doing this last year, then stopped > due to operator feedback. > > One of the things that gets a little weird (when using devstack for > development) is if you actually want to see the impact of library > changes on the environment. As you'll need to make sure you loop and > install those libraries into every venv where they are used. This > forward reference doesn't really exist. So some tooling there will be > needed. > > Middleware that's pushed from one project into another (like Ceilometer > -> Swift) is also a funny edge case that I think get funnier here. > > Those are mostly implementation details, that probably have work > arounds, but would need people on them. > > > From a strategic perspective this would basically make traditional Linux > Packaging of OpenStack a lot harder. That might be the right call, > because traditional Linux Packaging definitely suffers from the fact > that everything on a host needs to be upgraded at the same time. For > large installs of OpenStack (especially public cloud cases) traditional > packages are definitely less used. > > However Linux Packaging is how a lot of people get exposed to software. > The power of onboarding with apt-get / yum install is a big one. > > I've been through the ups and downs of both approaches so many times now > in my own head, I no longer have a strong preference beyond the fact > that we do one approach today, and doing a different one is effort to > make the transition. > > -Sean >
It is also worth noting that according to the OpenStack User Survey [0] 56% of deployments use "Unmodifed packages from the operating system". Granted it was a small sample size (302 responses to that question) but it is worth keeping this in mind as we talk about moving the burden to packagers. 0 - https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April-2016-User-Survey-Report.pdf (page 36) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
