Open jnpkrn opened 4 years ago
Note that, in the envisioned split, the effect of
[repomanager of choice] [install command] resource-agents
would remain exactly the same, as (presumably) resource-agents
would
depend on both resource-agents-lib-shell
and resource-agents-lib-python
(borrowing the suggested names).
Since the upstream project sets primary expectations about how the final bits shall be distributed in a form of RPM package(s), it's vital that such a trend is set to meet various (possibly competing) expectations.
The only such expectation that is now fully satisfied can be summarized:
This is effectively biased against other, competing use case:
Apparently, for such a use case, it may be an uncomfortable overkill to install all the agents, especially since it currently gets noticably amplified that all the run-time prerequisites of every and each such agent is dragged in as well.
We can even put a more distant horizon in the picture. Perhaps the ultimate goal would be to enclose each agent on the project in a subpackage on its own, bringing a true at-will granularity. This approach is currently implemented with a sibling
fence-agents
project and I am not aware of any bad fallout of such a cut.But let's start small, I propose this split (exact names to be decided, mostly for illustration):
resource-agents-lib-shell
resource-agents-lib-python
resource-agents
First two are self-explanatory, and these would preferably be
noach
. The last one will likely remain arch-specific for the time being, and will comprise all the agents as before, minus files placed in the former two.Case in point:
booth-site
package would effectively require justresource-agents-lib-shell
, avoiding incuring all agents + their dependencies to be installed. Hence noticably saving precious space in the static container images, for instance. Not to speak of situations of interdepency issues -- now such graph would be rather minimal, lowering the probability of getting stuck in case of "permanent flux" distros, for instance (say Fedora Rawhide).Currently, consider this widely open "RFC" type of inquiry, I can follow with the actual implementation if there's a consensus.