cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] vs. pacakge repos
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:50:17 GMT
David, just to address infra's original comment to you. The benefit of
having a healthy downstream is that our software will be properly
integrated into the respective OS. If we maintain our own debs, RPMs, etc,
there will be some disconnect there. One option is to cultivate a healthy
relationship with the downstream. Open lines of communication, or actually
get involved with the development there. There should be a way to plug this
into the release cycle. So that individuals contributing downstream
packages are notified, and kept in the loop on release schedules. That way,
it should be possible to avoid big delays between the source release, and
the availability in distros. Tough nut to crack though.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM, David Nalley <> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Wido den Hollander <>
> wrote:
> > On 09/11/2012 12:16 PM, Suresh Sadhu wrote:
> >>
> >> HI All,
> >>
> >> Installer fail to read the cloud packages  and MS installation on Ubuntu
> >> 12.04 was not successful(No packages were installed) Raised a blocker
> bug.
> >> Please find the issue details in the below mentioned issue:
> >>
> >
> > I'd like to bring this up again, do we REALLY want this
> script?
> This really deserves its own thread, because it won't receive the
> attention it deserves in the original thread.
> I talked with infra about this a few weeks back, and while they said
> they really wanted downstreams to package, they weren't vehemently
> opposed to use creating our own repo, but we'd have to figure out how
> to make it work with the mirror system.
> Personally - the packages as they exist are great for people doing a
> first, small scale install, but it doesn't scale. While I am not
> necessarily opposed to the installer, I also recognize the problems
> from a real world deployment perspective.
> However, there is an impact, at a minimum all of our documentation
> will need rewriting, so personally, I'd prefer that for 4.0.0 - that
> we do repos if we can figure it out in time, and keep the installer as
> an option as well.
> --David


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