On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, at 04:22 PM, Ben Nemec wrote: > While looking through the dib v2 changes after the feature branch was > merged to master, I noticed this commit[1], which bring dib-run-parts > back into dib itself. Unfortunately I missed the original proposal to > do this, but I have some concerns about the impact of this change. > > Originally the split was done so that dib-run-parts and one of the > os-*-config projects (looks like os-refresh-config) that depends on it > could be included in a stock distro cloud image without pulling in all > of dib. Note that it is still present in the requirements of orc: > https://github.com/openstack/os-refresh-config/blob/master/requirements.txt#L5 >
I had forgotten about this, but you're completely correct - the os-refresh-config phases are run via dib-run-parts. The reason for moving dib-run-parts back in to dib was to simplify some of the installation insanity we had going on, I want to say it was one reason you couldn't run disk-image-create from a virtualenv without sourcing it first. > Disk space in a distro cloud image is at a premium, so pulling in a > project like diskimage-builder to get one script out of it was not > acceptable, at least from what I was told at the time. > > I believe this was done so a distro cloud image could be used with Heat > out of the box, hence the heat tag on this message. I don't know > exactly what happened after we split out dib-utils, so I'm hoping > someone can confirm whether this requirement still exists. I think > Steve was the one who made the original request. There were a lot of > Steves working on Heat at the time though, so it's possible I'm wrong. > ;-) > > Anyway, I don't know that anything is broken at the moment since I > believe dib-run-parts was brought over unchanged, but the retirement of > dib-utils was proposed in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445617 and I > would like to resolve this question before we do anything like that. > I think you're right in that nothing should be broken ATM since the API is consistent. I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense to retire something which is depended on by other non-retired projects. The biggest issue I can see with us leaving dib-utils in its current state is there's the opportunity for the two implementations to drift and have slightly different dib-run-parts APIs. Maybe we could prevent this by deprecating dib-utils (or leaving a big warning of this tool is frozen in the README) and leaving os-refresh-config as is. Although it isn't ideal for os-refresh-config to depend on a deprecated tool I am not sure anyone is making use of os-refresh-config currently so I am hesitant to suggest we add back the complexity to DIB. > Thanks. > > -Ben > > 1: > https://github.com/openstack/diskimage-builder/commit/d65678678ec0416550d768f323ceace4d0861bca > Thanks! - Greg __________________________________________________________________________ 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