cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <>
Subject Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] Binary packaging - another round of discussions that I'd like us to come to a conclusion on.
Date Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:17:08 GMT
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chip Childers
<> wrote:
> All,
> This is another issue that we need to come to a consensus on (and I
> think we can do lazy consensus if required here) prior to 4.0 being
> released.
> We've variously been discussing how to best provide binary artifacts
> from the 4.0 release.  Knowing that we are purely discussing
> convenience builds for users, and that ASF releases are source only,
> I'd like to propose the following approach.
> I propose that the project only publishes source tarballs to the ASF
> mirrors, and that we rely on the community at large to publish binary
> build artifacts.
> Wido has volunteered to host deb and rpm repos containing packages
> built from the source, and I know that (over time) we will see the
> actual distributions put cloudstack packages together.  I would
> imagine (and am not speaking for Wido), that we could work with Wido
> to ensure that his hosted repos have the latest release in them.  We
> would then be in a position where it's OK if a specific distro
> packaging community is a version or two behind the ASF releases.  That
> scenario would allow us to point users that want the very latest
> release to the custom repo, but folks that want official distro
> packages can simply use the version being provided by their OS's
> packaging system.
> For the convenience of the community, I'd further propose that we
> provide a set of links to these community repos on our download page
> (including appropriate verbiage about the URLs not representing
> official ASF release artifacts).  This would also include instructions
> for how to setup a RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu system to pull from Wido's
> hosted repos.

David pointed out subversion does this:

> As for QA teams involved in the testing of ASF releases, I believe
> that we should continue to use jenkins.c.o (with Citrix's agreement
> and continued support) as the source for downloading packages for
> testing.  This is because it can do it for us on a nightly schedule.
> There is one optional part of this proposal:  we include a tarball of
> cloudstack jar files on the ASF mirrors.  Although, I'm just not sure
> what value that provides to the community.
> Thoughts?
> -chip

View raw message