Ok, based on what has been said here I suggest we keep this code for now. The changes were really minimal. If it creates some problems for us we can always easily revert.
Renat Akhmerov @Nokia > On 01 Jul 2016, at 04:57, Steve Martinelli <s.martine...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The crux of this, as Dean stated, is if the library wants OSC to always be > pulled in (along with its many dependencies). We've seen folks include it in > requirements, test-requirements, or even not at all (just document that OSC > needs to be installed). > > I tossed up the idea with the ironic team of leveraging "extras" field to > list OSC as optional, the change would look like: > > --- a/setup.cfg > +++ b/setup.cfg > @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ classifier = > > +[extras] > +cli = > + python-openstackclient>=3.0.0 # Apache-2.0 > + > > So, if a user wanted to install just the python binding of ironicclient or > mistralclient, they would do $ pip install python-ironicclient; if a user > wanted the CLI as well.. $ pip install python-ironicclient[cli] > > Just an idea, it may be overkill and completely horrible. > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dean Troyer <dtro...@gmail.com > <mailto:dtro...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Hardik <hardik.par...@nectechnologies.in > <mailto:hardik.par...@nectechnologies.in>> wrote: > Regarding osc-lib we have mainly two changes. > > 1) Used "utils" which is moved from openstackclient.common.utils to > osc_lib.utils > 2) We used "command" which wrapped in osc_lib from cliff. > > So I think there is no harm in keeping osc_lib. > > Admittedly the change to include osc-lib is a little early, I would have > preferred until the other parts of it were a bit more stable. > > Also, I guess we do not need openstackclient to be installed with > mistralclient as if mistral is used in standalone mode > there is no need of openstackclient. > > The choice to include OSC as a dependency of a plugin/library rests entirely > on the plugin team, and that will usually be determined by the answer to the > question "Do you want all users of your library to have OSc installed even if > they do not use it?" or alternatively "Do you want to make your users > remember to install OSC after installing the plugin?" > > Note that we do intend to have the capability on osc-lib to build an OSC-like > stand-alone binary for plugins that would theoretically make installing OSC > optional for stand-alone client users. This is not complete yet, and as I > said above, one reason I wish osc-lib had not been merged into plugin > requirements yet. That said, as long as you don't use those bits yet you > will be fine, the utils, command, etc bits are stable, it is the > clientmanager and shell parts that are still being developed. > > dt > > -- > > Dean Troyer > dtro...@gmail.com <mailto:dtro...@gmail.com> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
