We really don't want bindep IMO -- it's much safer to use the non-packaged version from pypi for our purposes, since we may not be running on a system that packages things like this. Again, our use case may be strange though, as we're really using the python module and not the binaries.
--Adam On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:07 AM Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > > Doug Wiegley wrote: > > [...] Paths forward: > > 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. > > 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the > service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been > pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We could > modify the bot to include it in some way, or do it manually, or with a > project specific job. > > 3. Split our service VM builds into another repo, to keep a clean > separation between API services and the backend. But, even this new > repo’s standlone requirements.txt file will have the g-r issue from #1. > > 4. Boot the backend out of OpenStack entirely. > > > All those options sound valid to me, so the requirements team should > pick what they are the most comfortable with. > > My 2c: yes g-r is mostly about runtime dependencies and ensuring > co-installability. However it also includes test/build-time deps, and > generally converging dependencies overall sounds like a valid goal. Is > there any drawback in adding gunicorn to g-r (option 1) ? > > > The drawback (in my mind) is that new projects might start using it giving > operators yet another thing to learn about when deploying a new component > (eventlet, gevent, gunicorn, ...). > > On the flip, what's the benefit of adding it to g-r? > > > The positive benefit is the same as Octavia’s use case: it provides an > alternative for any non-frontline-api service to run a lightweight > http/wsgi service as needed (service VMs, health monitor agents, etc). And > something better than the built-in debug servers in most of the frameworks. > > On the proliferation point, it is certainly a risk, though I’ve personally > heard pretty strong guidance that all main API services in our community > should be trending towards pecan. > > Thanks, > doug > > > -- > Ian Cordasco > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
