On 07/25/2012 04:07 PM, Robert Kukura wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 06:48 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
>> <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I think I'm in favour of keeping the 'openstack-' prefix on package names too.
>
> Is the plan to leave all the python code in the python-nova package,
> with the openstack-* packages just adding init scripts, config, and
> dependencies? Or is the python code being split up as well?
>
> In quantum, the python-quantum package currently contains the quantum
> core python code, but the quantum plugin python code is in the
> openstack-quantum-<plugin> subpackages.
>
> Is the current quantum approach consistent with the proposed approach
> for nova?
Your mention of config reminds me that I'd not considered shared nova.conf file.
Now each service can support multiple conf files, so we could have common
settings in /etc/nova/nova.conf and specific settings in
/etc/nova/nova-{compute,network,volume,...}.conf?
I'm 60:40 for keeping a single /etc/nova/nova.conf
Anyway, where to package the shared /etc/nova/nova.conf?
I suppose we could include it with python-nova and perhaps rename
that package to openstack-nova-common to be clearer on
the intent of that package. Alternatively we could create
a new openstack-nova-common package to include this config file
and other shared stuff like /usr/bin/nova-rootwrap?
I'm 70:30 for creating a new openstack-nova-common package.
cheers,
Pádraig.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
