On Oct 17, 2016 7:27 PM, "Thomas Goirand" <z...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 10/17/2016 08:43 PM, Adam Harwell wrote: > > Jim, that is exactly my thought -- the main focus of g-r as far as I was > > aware is to maintain interoperability between project dependencies for > > openstack deploys, and since our amphora image is totally separate, it > > should not be restricted to g-r requirements. > > The fact that we have a unified version number of a given lib in all of > OpenStack is also because that's a requirement of downstream distros. > > Imagine that someone would like to build the Octavia image using > exclusively packages from <your-favorite-distro-here>... > > > I brought this up, but > > others thought it would be prudent to go the g-r route anyway. > > It is, and IMO you should go this route.
I'm not convinced by your arguments here, Thomas. If the distributor were packaging Octavia for X but the image is using some other operating system, say Y, why are X's packages relevant? I would think that if this is something inside an image going to be launched by Octavia that co-installibilty wouldn't really be an issue. I don't lean either way right now, so I'd really like to understand your point of view, especially since right now it isn't making much sense to me.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
