Plugins packaging

[kuba]

Here's an idea: move all plugins to separate git repositories and distribute them in a separate PyPI/Debian/etc. packages (that is all apart from standalone, which is probably best to be left in the main distribution). setuptools entry_points system, which is already being used in master, makes such transformation a breeze.

entry point name	GitHub	PyPI	Debian
apache	letsencrypt-apache	letsencrypt-apache	letsencrypt-apache
nginx	letsencrypt-nginx	letsencrypt-nginx	letsencrypt-nginx
...	...	...	...

• PyPI packages would have to install_requires.append('letsencrypt'), as well as set up entry_points appropriately
• Debian plugin packages would Require: letsencrypt as well as specific server software, e.g. letsecrnypt-apache would Require: apache. letsencrypt Debian package could Suggest: letsencrypt-apache, etc.
• CLI would automatically populate --{plugin_name}-{option_name}, similarly {plugin_name}_{option_name} for config

This would simplify a lot of things, such as release process, Python 3 compatibility transition, OS support (e.g. AFAIR augeas, necessary for apache or nginx plugins, is not even available on Windows, what about it's py3 compat?)... Main cons is probably less control over the namespace (e.g. PyPI), or establising unique {plugin_name} etc.

https://github.com/kuba/lets-encrypt-preview/tree/cli brings us closer to the required architecture (moves plugin specific constants and CLI arguments to plugins subdirs, first attempt at unique plugin names problem)

cc: @jdkasten, @fmarier

[fmarier]

In the above example, you'd still have a base package (letsencrypt) that would contain the files common to all plugins?

From a Debian point of view, it's very easy to build several "binary" packages from the same source package. We already build a separate letsencrypt-doc package for example. These binary packages can have different dependencies too.

So I don't really have a strong opinion either way.

[kuba]

Yes, there would be a base package (letsencrypt) that does all the CLI logic and loads entry_points plugins.

[kuba]

#376 (comment) Quick summary: great idea for the future, but we are not yet ready. Sounds plausible to me. I will close this for now, noting that #376 is a big step towards this goal.

[kuba]

Reopening for launch. Progress made with #531.

[jsha]

This is now done, to the extent that the plugins are their own packages. I think we've decided to keep maintaining everything in the same repo, though.