[Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
Folks, I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements. I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements. Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly). What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content. Thoughts, Sau!
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs. My two cents. :) Thanks, Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
-- Blog: serverascode.com
Comments inline. From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM To: Saul Wold Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com<mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: Folks, I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements. Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies. I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements. Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly). Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen? [Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi. What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content. I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs. [Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs. My two cents. :) Thanks, Curtis Thoughts, Sau! _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> wrote:
Comments inline.
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM *To:* Saul Wold *Cc:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
*[Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi.*
Thanks. Good to know. :)
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs.
*[Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs.*
Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.) Thanks, Curtis
My two cents. :)
Thanks,
Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
--
Blog: serverascode.com
-- Blog: serverascode.com
A few points to keep in mind here: 1) Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible. 2) Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers. 3) We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack. Brent From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM To: Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> Cc: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com<mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> wrote: Comments inline. From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com<mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM To: Saul Wold Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com<mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: Folks, I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements. Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies. [BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements. Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly). Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen? [Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi. Thanks. Good to know. :) What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content. I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs. [Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs. Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.) Thanks, Curtis My two cents. :) Thanks, Curtis Thoughts, Sau! _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com> -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:42 AM Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> wrote:
A few points to keep in mind here:
1) Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible.
2) Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers.
3) We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack.
With those points in mind, does that mean after moving to vanilla openstack the keystone code will come from an upstream RPM? Thanks, Curtis
Brent
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM *To:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> *Cc:* Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> wrote:
Comments inline.
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM *To:* Saul Wold *Cc:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
[BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
*[Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi.*
Thanks. Good to know. :)
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs.
*[Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs.*
Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.)
Thanks,
Curtis
My two cents. :)
Thanks,
Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
--
Blog: serverascode.com
--
Blog: serverascode.com
-- Blog: serverascode.com
See inline From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:30 AM To: Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> Cc: Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com>; Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:42 AM Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com<mailto:Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>> wrote: A few points to keep in mind here: 1) Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible. 2) Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers. 3) We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack. With those points in mind, does that mean after moving to vanilla openstack the keystone code will come from an upstream RPM? [BR] Since we will be doing CI with openstack master, we will be building our own rpm’s. The upstream centos distro would only have release rpm’s (i.e. rocky). Thanks, Curtis Brent From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com<mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM To: Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com<mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> Cc: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com<mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com<mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> wrote: Comments inline. From: Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com<mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM To: Saul Wold Cc: starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0 On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com<mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: Folks, I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements. Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies. [BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements. Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly). Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen? [Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi. Thanks. Good to know. :) What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content. I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs. [Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs. Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.) Thanks, Curtis My two cents. :) Thanks, Curtis Thoughts, Sau! _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io<mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com> -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com> -- Blog: serverascode.com<http://serverascode.com>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> wrote:
See inline
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 11:30 AM *To:* Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> *Cc:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com>; Saul Wold < sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:42 AM Rowsell, Brent < Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> wrote:
A few points to keep in mind here:
1) Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible.
2) Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers.
3) We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack.
With those points in mind, does that mean after moving to vanilla openstack the keystone code will come from an upstream RPM?
[BR] Since we will be doing CI with openstack master, we will be building our own rpm’s. The upstream centos distro would only have release rpm’s (i.e. rocky).
OK thanks for the answer. Interesting. Thanks, Curtis
Thanks,
Curtis
Brent
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM *To:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> *Cc:* Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> wrote:
Comments inline.
*From:* Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM *To:* Saul Wold *Cc:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
[BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
*[Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi.*
Thanks. Good to know. :)
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs.
*[Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs.*
Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.)
Thanks,
Curtis
My two cents. :)
Thanks,
Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
--
Blog: serverascode.com
--
Blog: serverascode.com
--
Blog: serverascode.com
-- Blog: serverascode.com
On 2/15/19 9:59 AM, Rowsell, Brent wrote:
See inline
*From:*Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 11:30 AM *To:* Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com> *Cc:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com>; Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:42 AM Rowsell, Brent <Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com <mailto:Brent.Rowsell@windriver.com>> wrote:
A few points to keep in mind here:
1)Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible.
2)Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers.
3)We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack.
With those points in mind, does that mean after moving to vanilla openstack the keystone code will come from an upstream RPM?
[BR] Since we will be doing CI with openstack master, we will be building our own rpm’s. The upstream centos distro would only have release rpm’s (i.e. rocky).
This is great news, thanks for this update. Sau!
Thanks,
Curtis
Brent
*From:*Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com <mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM *To:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com <mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> *Cc:* Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com <mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> wrote:
Comments inline.
*From:*Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com <mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM *To:* Saul Wold *Cc:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
[BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
*/[Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi./*
Thanks. Good to know. :)
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs.
*/[Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs./*
Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.)
Thanks,
Curtis
My two cents. :)
Thanks,
Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
--
Blog: serverascode.com <http://serverascode.com>
--
Blog: serverascode.com <http://serverascode.com>
--
Blog: serverascode.com <http://serverascode.com>
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
On 2/15/19 7:42 AM, Rowsell, Brent wrote:
A few points to keep in mind here:
1)Config_controller is being removed and replaced with ansible.
I know there is a specification for this work, is there some preliminary work that I can look at or work with to test?
2)Openstack deployment will not be part of the initial controller bootstrapping. Openstack will be deployed in containers.
I understood there were still some openstack requirements on controller-0 such as keystone and horizon. I am looking at the stx_container_update PDF from the Chandler meeting.
3)We are in the process of moving to vanilla openstack.
Yes, I know this. Sau!
Brent
*From:*Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 10:19 AM *To:* Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com> *Cc:* Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>; starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:12 AM Penney, Don <Don.Penney@windriver.com <mailto:Don.Penney@windriver.com>> wrote:
Comments inline.
*From:*Curtis [mailto:serverascode@gmail.com <mailto:serverascode@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 8:24 AM *To:* Saul Wold *Cc:* starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> *Subject:* Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Package Requirements on the bare-metal controller-0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:51 PM Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
Folks,
I was doing some experimentation with an un-patched CentOS and running config_controller. One of the main issues I found is that doing the initial installation and execution discovered many un-resolved runtime requirements.
Thanks for looking into this Saul, I think this is a good thing to do to work towards getting a understanding of dependencies.
[BR] Keep in mind config_controller is being removed and being replaced with ansible. The bootsta
I will start sending some pull requests to fault, metal, and config with more detailed "Requires:" statements.
Another item is that since that we are rebuilding openstack-keystone among other openstack related packages with additional configuration and scripts, which are needed for controller-0. In the stx-integ (base OS) case, we re-factored many of the packages to remove configuration and additional scripts to a separate package, I would like to see something similar here for packages are are needed for controller-0 (ie the things we are not installing from PyPi directly).
Do we install things directly from PyPi? When does that happen?
*/[Don] No, we don’t install anything from PyPi./*
Thanks. Good to know. :)
What I saw is that we include the CentOS-Openstack RPM repo along with, of course, our StarlingX RPM repo. Why can't we use the CentOS-Openstack packages directly along with some StarlingX specific additions in a seperate package, rather than creating a new package with both upstream and StarlingX content.
I don't know what the extra things are that we are packaging, but if they are only helper scripts and the like and don't affect the actual keystone code then I'd hope we would use the upstream RPMs.
*/[Don] As much as possible, we look to use unmodified upstream RPMs./*
Can you expand on that statement in the context of this particular RPM? (Sorry I'm not familiar with what we are doing with Keystone.)
Thanks,
Curtis
My two cents. :)
Thanks,
Curtis
Thoughts,
Sau!
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io <mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
--
Blog: serverascode.com <http://serverascode.com>
--
Blog: serverascode.com <http://serverascode.com>
_______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
participants (4)
-
Curtis
-
Penney, Don
-
Rowsell, Brent
-
Saul Wold