Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <510F8E64.70906@widodh.nl>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:33:08 +0100
From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Packaging in 4.1
References: <6DE00C9FDF08A34683DF71786C70EBF02F69715B@SBPOMB402.sbp.lan>
 <CANLSSBX-q1=v4YXd+c4kruetYvtTfosXhBuwOUGf7phODOG_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKprHVYj2Jb9A6YrdjJZ3RDhGVPO8Zhr_H=Oq+mSOE5AqFOFOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLSSBXsdtHYQntGQXLeoFZ7BeP46iyvua-7iBSu4v_5_KofiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKprHVbwavU-zb74pVVi2j=PKoYWo3SDA6=kP1eEDcuZOSx+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLSSBXyPegiDRjmYSn3UPtuRzfoKjf1xxCatYv8ocWO2h2_Pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKprHVZhoA6y3z+AWghSwtH1im32+gVHJZOQ-iRSm3+r4-eb1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLSSBXffHZv06dkRcQ3SM9h28zR+h9NXT7Gepb2G1n98B33Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F15861558@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F15861558@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 02/04/2013 07:12 AM, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:
> Wanted to check when would this be implemented?? Several QA folks depend on the packages and need this working.
> We have been still building using waf but today that is also not working as some references are removed.
>
> Is it possible to accelerate this process or leave old way of packaging in place till you are done with the new changes
>

I fully understand. As I told David, I think the DEB work is about one 
day of work, but then again, there is something like $dayjob.

What might be even tougher is to get the RPM and DEB packages fully 
synced. cloudstack-common for example should contain exactly the same 
files in the RPM and DEB version, so Hugo and I will have to keep in touch.

I really want to have the DEB packaging working this week, period.

Wido

> Thanks
> /sudha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rohit Yadav
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:14 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Packaging in 4.1
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:41 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhaisaab@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> So EL6 has pygments 1.1.1 - you require 1.5, so in some ways it's
>>>> worth than clint (clint is in EPEL, but no new version of pygments
>>>> in
>>>> EPEL/CentOS-Extras/CentOS-Plus)
>>>
>>> I want people to use pip to install the cli because it's the easiest
>>> and because rpm/deb packages may have dependency issues like you
>>> mentioned => may not work on all distros, what we can do is when
>>> people install cloudstack-cli rpm or deb, it runs a script that
>>> installs pip (if unavailable) and cloudmonkey. cloudmonkey is pure
>>> python, so the rpm/deb can also ship bundling src tarballs of
>>> cloudmonkey and its dependencies and install from it. Advise best way
>>> of doing this?
>>
>> I guess we won't be installing the CLI via RPMs at least for EL6.
>>
>> You are assuming that they would have internet access when installing
>> - which is not a valid assumption.
>>
>> Honestly, the above idea makes me blanch. A package that reports as
>> installed, and may or may not have installed - may have installed a
>> compromised package (see rubygems.org compromise recently, kernel.org,
>> and a number of other site compromises.), or might have installed
>> packages I didn't know about is a Bad Idea (tm) The sysadmin doesn't
>> know you are installing some of the dependencies, there is no record
>> of those packages in the package manager, and there might potentially
>> be conflicts with system packages, a security vulnerability in one of
>> those dependencies wouldn't be caught on audit, etc etc.
>
> /facepalm\, it's just a problem of packaging. The package can include cli or any other artifact's dependencies, so in case of cli, you bundle both pygments and prettytable in cli's rpm/deb. AFAIK all of them are pure python so easily installable. The cool people can use pip to install.
>
>>
>> And I really don't intend for this to sound like a rant, but the one
>> of the important benefits behind using packages and a package manager
>> is that a sysadmin needs (and often is required to have by government
>> regulations) a single source of truth about the software installed on
>> a machine.
>
> No, it's not a rant, I understand.
>
>> Developers love things like Maven central, pypi, CPAN, and rubygems,
>> and for good reason, they are fast, flexible, and make their life
>> easy. To a sysadmin managing machines in production, they are
>> anathema; they make system state difficult or impossible to determine,
>> they make audits painful.
>
> I just assumed the sysadmin who would install CloudStack, cli and whatnot won't be stupid, at the same time I want his life to be less miserable.
>
>> In addition they make troubleshooting
>> incredibly difficult. Do I have $foo installed - which version? Are
>> there multiple copies of $foo installed on the system? Which one is
>> actually being called/loaded?
>
> Alright, but I'm talking only about the cli, since most users, admins included, would want it to run on their machines, the installation should be easiest, that's why I said they can use pip, so it works on their windows, osx, linux, bsd boxes and that's why it's pure python (written that way).
>
> Regards.
>>
>> --David