+1 This sounds reasonable to me. I'm glad the issue was raised, but IMO it shouldn't derail progress on an approved blueprint with ready code.
Jichen, would you please go ahead and file that blueprint template (no need to write a spec yet) and link it in a review comment on the bottom zvm patch so we have a paper trail? I'm thinking something like "Consistent platform-specific and optional requirements" -- that leaves us open to decide *how* we're going to "handle" them. Thanks, efried On 04/12/2018 04:13 AM, Chen CH Ji wrote: > Thanks for Michael for raising this question and detailed information > from Clark > > As indicated in the mail, xen, vmware etc might already have this kind > of requirements (and I guess might be more than that) , > can we accept z/VM requirements first by following other existing ones > then next I can create a BP later to indicate this kind > of change request by referring to Clark's comments and submit patches to > handle it ? Thanks > > Best Regards! > > Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨 > > Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL > Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet: jiche...@cn.ibm.com > Phone: +86-10-82451493 > Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian > District, Beijing 100193, PRC > > Inactive hide details for Matt Riedemann ---04/12/2018 08:46:25 AM---On > 4/11/2018 5:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >Matt Riedemann ---04/12/2018 > 08:46:25 AM---On 4/11/2018 5:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: > > > From: Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Date: 04/12/2018 08:46 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Deployers] Optional, platform > specific, dependancies in requirements.txt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > On 4/11/2018 5:09 PM, Michael Still wrote: >> >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__review.openstack.org_-23_c_523387&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=8sI5aZT88Uetyy_XsOddbPjIiLSGM-sFnua3lLy2Xr0&m=212PUwLYOBlJZ3BiZNuJIFkRfqXoBPJDcWYCDk7vCHg&s=CNosrTHnAR21zOI52fnDRfTqu2zPiAn2oW9f67Qijo4&e= > proposes > adding a z/VM specific >> dependancy to nova's requirements.txt. When I objected the counter >> argument is that we have examples of windows specific dependancies >> (os-win) and powervm specific dependancies in that file already. >> >> I think perhaps all three are a mistake and should be removed. >> >> My recollection is that for drivers like ironic which may not be >> deployed by everyone, we have the dependancy documented, and then loaded >> at runtime by the driver itself instead of adding it to >> requirements.txt. This is to stop pip for auto-installing the dependancy >> for anyone who wants to run nova. I had assumed this was at the request >> of the deployer community. >> >> So what do we do with z/VM? Do we clean this up? Or do we now allow >> dependancies that are only useful to a very small number of deployments >> into requirements.txt? > > As Eric pointed out in the review, this came up when pypowervm was added: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__review.openstack.org_-23_c_438119_5_requirements.txt&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=8sI5aZT88Uetyy_XsOddbPjIiLSGM-sFnua3lLy2Xr0&m=212PUwLYOBlJZ3BiZNuJIFkRfqXoBPJDcWYCDk7vCHg&s=iyKxF-CcGAFmnQs8B7d5u2zwEiJqq8ivETmrgB77PEg&e= > > And you're asking the same questions I did in there, which was, should > it go into test-requirements.txt like oslo.vmware and > python-ironicclient, or should it go under [extras], or go into > requirements.txt like os-win (we also have the xenapi library now too). > > I don't really think all of these optional packages should be in > requirements.txt, but we should just be consistent with whatever we do, > be that test-requirements.txt or [extras]. I remember caring more about > this back in my rpm packaging days when we actually tracked what was in > requirements.txt to base what needed to go into the rpm spec, unlike > Fedora rpm specs which just zero out requirements.txt and depend on > their own knowledge of what needs to be installed (which is sometimes > lacking or lagging master). > > I also seem to remember that [extras] was less than user-friendly for > some reason, but maybe that was just because of how our CI jobs are > setup? Or I'm just making that up. I know it's pretty simple to install > the stuff from extras for tox runs, it's just an extra set of > dependencies to list in the tox.ini. > > Having said all this, I don't have the energy to help push for > consistency myself, but will happily watch you from the sidelines. > > -- > > Thanks, > > Matt > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openstack.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_openstack-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=8sI5aZT88Uetyy_XsOddbPjIiLSGM-sFnua3lLy2Xr0&m=212PUwLYOBlJZ3BiZNuJIFkRfqXoBPJDcWYCDk7vCHg&s=2FioyzCRtztysjjEqCrBTkpQs_wwfs3Mt2wGDkrft-s&e= > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
