[Rdo-list] Integration of MidoNet into RDO Manager

[Perry Myers]

> It's combined APT and RPM, but you're right, there's currently no
> source packages for either.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why do people need to be able to rebuild them (in
> the scenario we're discussing - integrating MidoNet with RDO Manager)?

I don't think they strictly need this ability. Providing packages that
are rebuildable by the community is a nice thing to do, but it shouldn't
be a strict requirement in a case like this, I believe.

If anything I'd focus on providing a rebuildable RPM for the Neutron
plugin itself, but perhaps skip that for the SDN solution that is paired
with it.

>>>>
>>>> Are packages hosted on the developer's repositories acceptable for
>>>> integration into RDO Manager? We need to unbundle a couple of things
>>>> (or maybe more than just a couple) before we can package them for
>>>> inclusion into the proper repository.
>>> Typically, using a COPR is just a transition step to getting packages
>>> into Fedora;  RDO very much follows the Fedora model.
>>>
>>> The individual packages themselves must be submitted, reviewed, and
>>> maintained.  RDO manager is the last step of the process, and will only
>>> work with RDOmanaged packages.
> 
> So all our packages would have to be part of the RDO repository (which
> I trust follows the EPEL/Fedora Guidelines)?

I think having the packages part of a repo available on RDO would make
the end user experience a lot easier, but I don't think there is/should
be a strict requirement that anything integrated with RDO and RDO
Manager _must_ be hosted on the RDO site.

We might want to differentiate between (for example) the Neutron plugin
packages and the SDN solution, for that.

I also want to make sure folks understand that I don't think that
getting packages like this 'into Fedora' should be a requirement.

Right now we are tied to getting things into Fedora since we don't have
another place to host spec files, etc, but we're working on decoupling
from this so that we can move to a model where we are 'on Fedora'
instead of 'in Fedora'

But to the extent that we can, we try to follow Fedora packaging
guidelines as a best practice, but can/will make exceptions where it
makes sense.

>>>> Speaking of repositories, once we're ready to package them properly
>>>> for inclusion, which repository would be the (most?) proper one for
>>>> RDO Manager? RDO? CentOS (wherever Cloud SIG packages go)? EPEL?
>>> Its usually easiest to start with Fedora for all packaging.  Once they
>>> are accepted into Fedora, figuring out how to get them into the
>>> appropriate other locations will follow.
> 
> Well, for our packages, Fedora and EL would be fairly different. The
> MidoNet core is written in Java/Scala, so much more (tools, deps) is
> missing from EL, e.g. gradle and of course lots of artifacts. So we
> should target EPEL, I guess.

I wouldn't follow Adam's advice here (starting with Fedora). Especially
for the SDN solution which is Java based. That would lead to a lot of
pain and overhead.

>>> Thus far, RDO manager has been focused on upstream OpenStack and the
>>> necessary pieces from the base OS that need to be updated to support
>>> it.  While it should be possible to have an add-on like MidoNet, I don't
>>> know how the rest of the community would feel about it being required to
>>> be part of RDO.  My thought is that, so long as it A) is under a
>>> sufficient license and B) provides real value beyond what is available
>>> from Neutron, it should be possible to include, so long as including it
>>> does not impact people currently developing and deploying RDO.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any move to get MidoNet into upstream OpenStack?
>>
>> Aren't we talking about the midonet neutron plug-in which was already part of neutron-proper but as a result of the plug-in decomposition effort now has it's own repo under the openstack namespace ( http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/networking-midonet/ ). I'm really unclear on what the issue is here versus other RDO-Manager integration efforts - perhaps you can clarify?
> 
> Yes, that's what we're talking about, thanks for providing the reference :)
> 
> However, I'm a bit confused now - surely, integration would not just
> include the plugin but also the SDN solution the plugin is leveraging,
> right?

That's actually a good question. I think typically we've been thinking
about integration of the plugin only, because that is co-located on
compute nodes and there might be controller node software that needs to
be bundled for certain SDN solutions as well.

But I can see where deployment of the SDN solution itself by RDO Manager
could be very useful and would make the end user experience much easier.
But I'd have to defer to folks on that team as to how and if this could
be done :)

>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve
>>
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Haïkel <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> I don't know much about MidoNet, but in order to get accepted in RDO
>>
>> 1. licensing should be compatible with RDO
> 
> Apache Software License 2.0
> 
>> 2. it has to be an upstreamed effort
> 
> Like with most Neutron plugins, the plugin itself is upstream but the
> rest isn't.
> 
> Neutron MidoNet Plugin (as shared by Steve above already):
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/networking-midonet/
> 
> MidoNet:
> https://github.com/midonet/midonet/
> 
> 
>> 3. an identified maintainer (RDO Eng. will focus on maintaining "core"
>> projects, and we won't be maintaining all neutron drivers)
> 
> That should be no problem. Does this have to be a single person or can
> it be a team?

A single person can be a team :)

>> 4. provide packages conforming Fedora guidelines
> 
> Okay, so - as Adam and Steve already hinted - non-conforming packages
> (hosted on our own repo) are not acceptable then? Our biggest headache
> right now (like with any Java software) in terms of the Fedora
> Packaging Guidelines are tons of bundled jars - so that would be a
> no-go, right?

I think we need to relax the requirements on #4 here. For the Neutron
plugin, I think we can/should conform to Fedora packaging guidelines,
and definitely get that package hosted on RDO directly.

For the SDN solution in Java, I think we should either allow:
* Relaxed packaging guidelines, recognizing that this is an SDN
  solution, and we host Midonet RPMs on RDO site
  (i.e. allow jar bundling for this)
* Or allow RDO Manager to pull packages from your repos, not hosted on
  RDO site

I think either path should be acceptable.

>> 5. take responsibility for CI
> 
> Of course.

With assistance from the CI team in RDO, of course, to get you started.

>> As far as these conditions are respected, there should be no problems
>> in accepting MidoNet in RDO.
> 
> Getting all these deps packaged will really be a major effort so if
> that's required, it will take a while. Otherwise, I see no obstacles
> :)
> 
>> In brief, what we require is commitment and taking responsibility of
>> contributed packages.
> 
> Sure, that's in our best interest anyway :)
> 
>> Sandro, we'll both be at Flock in few weeks, so I'll be glad to
>> discuss with you about it.
> 
> Sure, let's do that :)

Sounds like a plan.

Sandro, glad to see you engaging with us in the community here, and
looking forward to seeing how this integration works!

Thanks,

Perry