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(a)redhat.com> 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.