openstack team mailing list archive
-
openstack team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #12087
Re: Middleware packaging (was: swift3 middleware split)
-
To:
openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Tue, 22 May 2012 14:10:05 +0200
-
In-reply-to:
<CAPeWyqz-bAUqZ53GSbkXHz6aqiic9wA7mG2WG2L=Xjt=g-KpUA@mail.gmail.com>
-
Organization:
OpenStack
-
User-agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I expect the packaging teams in each distro to consider which plugins
>> make the most sense and package them.
>
> +1, this is totally up to the distro to takes care of those things.
>
> Talking about packaging and middlewares, it would be nice if the
> packagers could do a split of the middlewares from a main project.
>
> For example in keystone the auth_token middleware is located in the
> python-keystone package for Ubuntu[1] it would be much nicer if this
> is splitted to its own package like python-keystone-auth-token and
> avoid end-user confusion like "why do I need to install the full
> keystone[2] to get Nova/Swift/Glance+KeystoneAuth working"
>
> I am not sure what's the process to get this forward, should I just
> report a bug against Fedora/Ubuntu package and attach a patch for the
> .spec, debian/control in there ?
Yes, that should definitely be installable without pulling the whole
thing. I would file a bug against the relevant packaging, for example
for Keystone in Ubuntu:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/keystone/+filebug
That said, in that particular case, we should probably first address the
wider question of where the keystone/swift middleware should actually
live. Looks like for the other projects this is shipped as part of the
core project code, and having some consistency there would probably be good.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
Follow ups
References