A standard package for PTL will be useful for all PTL users. As such, I am proposing two approaches for PTL packaging.
The first approach is .whl files as a pip enabled package.
The second one is .rpm packages which is currently being used by PBS to package itself.
Some notable points for each packaging mechanism.
|Whl packaging||Rpm packaging|
|* Whl will handle dependencies through requirements.txt file||* Rpms will easily be able to handle all types of dependencies|
|* It is platform dependent||* Also platform dependent|
|* Existing rpm infrastructure present in PBS packaging|
|* Easier to implement than whl on our current infrastructure|
|* It will be easier to use by current users as they already use PBS rpms|
As it suggests both methods are almost equivalent, except that we already have infrastructue for rpm packages. Contemplating on various pros on said packages I am propsing to go with rpm packaging over whl packaging. Building up on the existing directory structure we will create an additional rpm package for PTL, which will be compatible with the PBSpro package.
Please suggest any moderation/alternate approach if needed.