[Pkg-ganeti-devel] Ganeti package

[Iustin Pop]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 01:09:21AM +0300, Apollon Oikonomopoulos wrote:
> Hi Iustin,
> 
> On 20:37 Fri 12 Jul     , Iustin Pop wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:44:36PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
> > > +Iustin who's also a debian packake maintainer:
> > 
> > Thanks. Please use/CC pkg-ganeti-maintainers or however the list is
> > named.
> > 
> 
> ACK.

Thanks :)

> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Guido Trotter <ultrotter at google.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Apollon Oikonomopoulos
> > > > <apoikos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>       Convert to dh_python2
> > > >>       Do not ship underscore.js
> > > >>
> > > >> The debdiff output is what I expected. One question though: I chose to
> > > >> Build-Depend on python-all rather than python (or pythonX.Y), so that the
> > > >> ganeti module ships for all available python versions. Any objections to that?
> > 
> > Apollon, why do we want this? We're not guaranteeing API compatibility
> > for direct use, except for the rapi_client, so this seems a bit useless.
> 
> Well, in that case we should ship the whole application modulo the RAPI 
> client as a private module under /usr/share/ganeti. This will probably 
> complicate things wrt. PYTHONPATH though. OTOH, Build-Depending on 
> python (not -all) would not guarantee cross-version support for the RAPI 
> client (see below).

I'm a bit confused here. Wouldn't the python packaging solve
automatically the PYTHONPATH isses? Or rather, I thought no matter how
the modules are handled (private or public), the packaging handles that
and it's transparent to the application.

> > Speaking of which, should we provide ganeti-rapi-client as a separate
> > package for 3rd party use?
> 
> My opinion on this as a 3rd-party application developer is "yes", since 
> I ended up embedding the RAPI client into whichever application I was 
> writing at the time.

Sounds good then. We can have ganeti using python and ganeti-rapi-client
depend on python-all, so all is good, right?

> I was also thinking of splitting the HTML documentation out to a 
> ganeti-doc package, since it's pretty useless on the nodes themselves, 
> but pretty useful on the admin's workstation. What do you think?

SGTM!

thanks,
iustin