accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Drop RPM/DEB packaging from maven build
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2014 18:18:05 GMT
+1 g, -1 a/c/d/f


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>wrote:

> +1 to g
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > RPM/DEB building in Maven is currently quite convoluted. There's some
> > question as to whether we should even be performing this task or
> > whether we should defer to downstream maintainers for system
> > packaging. Whether or not we continue supporting RPM/DEB binary
> > packages or if we defer that to downstream maintainers, we should
> > probably not maintain them within the main maven build. Here's some
> > reasons why:
> >
> > 1) The maven complexity is enormous, and every change to the binary
> > tarball packaging requires an equivalent change in at least two more
> > places: the RPM build config, and DEB build config.
> >
> > 2) The RPMs and DEBs have different packaging conventions, because
> > their target systems have different packaging conventions. It's not
> > easy to discern whether these differences are bugs or intended in the
> > current scheme.
> >
> > 3) The breakage of the RPMs/DEBs should not block a release. They can
> > be packaged after an official release, to correspond to the target
> > systems. Changes to packaging should also not require a bump in the
> > version of Accumulo itself.
> >
> > 4) The current scheme does not allow for source packages (deb sources
> > and SRPMs) for rebuilding.
> >
> > 5) I don't know DEBs, and do not have the expertise necessary to
> > maintain their packaging. Whoever knows DEBs probably does not know
> > RPMs. Maintenance of these logically make more sense as contribs,
> > maintained by their respective downstream maintainers.
> >
> > 6) DEBs may require packaging different init scripts for modern
> > systems (upstart-compatible scripts for Ubuntu, systemd scripts for
> > Fedora/RHEL7, or SysV init scripts for RHEL6). Convergence in our
> > build is not possible, and would introduce even more complexity.
> >
> > There are many possible downstream maintainers: Apache BigTop, Linux
> > distribution-specific maintainers, Homebrew formula maintainer for
> > Mac, etc. We should make it easy for them to build their packages, but
> > we should probably not be in the business of trying to create them in
> > our build directly. It may be the case that supporting these different
> > systems will still involve package maintainers who are also upstream
> > developers... and that's fine. We could even create contrib repos for
> > maintaining those things, but they should be separate from the
> > upstream build.
> >
> > Currently, I believe the DEBs are broken... but I don't know exactly
> > how, and don't know enough about DEB packaging to fix them (I could
> > learn, but not without possibly delaying the 1.6.0 release). So, the
> > question is, should we (select all that are appropriate):
> >
> > a) Fix before 1.6.0 is released.
> > b) Release 1.6.0 and fix later.
> > c) Include RPMs/DEBs in 1.6.0 release.
> > d) Build packages within the main build.
> > e) Create contrib repos for RPM/DEB packaging.
> > f) Create contrib branches for RPM/DEB packaging.
> > g) Strip them out and defer to whatever downstream maintainers decide to
> > do.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message