Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Thomas,
I normally side with the distro's take on making sure there is no duplication,
but I think Thierry's point comes from two differences coming up that the
traditional distro's don't tend to account for.
(and to be fair, I normally side with the distro's take too... If you
asked me the same question 5 years ago I would be taking exactly the
same side as Thomas)
[...]
To Thierry's point about newer distro's, there are distro's today starting to
form around Docker as a packaging device and it does not have the same issues
that traditional distro's do. Fedora/Redhat Atomic, CoreOS, RancherOS are some
examples. You can run incompatible rabbit's on the same server. Both can be
patched to the latest secure version, but simply incompatible with each other.
Say a stable v1 branch and a stable v2 branch. They probably share every
package except 1, and at a file system level actually do share all the space
but the change.
Yes, you could imagine a container-based server distro that would deploy
complex stacks (beyond the base system) as official containers (or
pods). To avoid the maintenance/security/bundling nightmare, they would
still reproducibly build those containers from a finite collection of
base packages, but in that collection there could be multiple versions
of the same library. If a security issue appears, you can still
determine which base packages are affected and update them all, then
refresh all containers that happen to use those packages.
It is totally technically doable, it would be a "sane way to maintain
software" (just a different one), and it would meet the needs of
everyone (the rift between distros and upstream is not affecting just
OpenStack).
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
