Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FDBA11301 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 11244 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2014 20:07:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 11202 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2014 20:07:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 85533 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jun 2014 19:53:50 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of creategui@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.41 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0tRT++22l/2Kg2CWh6gWDBmVJWKgI/kJB2xhGuh1N7I=; b=Yu55R04Yd0dHsF/QnzvCkdVQfL7R26YbIXn9sudOLgckAsrh3sRVhfDYy5uta+PFjJ xI60vkouR57uS7ygoiSSS7DPp4A2T0wjNmUG2Xzjn0ZAIdphJ9SPVbOd30N0sZS8PT8Z 4NZLNobgAxIlXw+w8GiOcpyojZWYC6LIDTFJdiuN0CcUgLnrprtWGmR4JgrMFLjwiQPn yi5lWlXmVWdYM125AUsLa0Ptd6+seBjMVG0ts8y6b9T6I97pslZUwXD13/IZmwi1Bitn MS/l9tIgxLyAD2cLYgtLR+KXF3pyGTTPTMNjuuR6O1K2eaN1JlT1eWKNqBflTtgphJZ+ VkTw== X-Received: by 10.66.216.197 with SMTP id os5mr7628177pac.29.1403294004697; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Subject: Re: building and testing 4.4. From: =?windows-1252?Q?Carlos_Re=E1tegui?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:53:21 -0700 Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" , "wido@widodh.nl" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <268A7B4D-E237-417F-A14C-084A28E4106E@gmail.com> References: <8B67F11F-F852-463D-8FE6-821DF4CA6977@gmail.com> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Carlos Re=E1tegui = > wrote: >=20 >> Hi Rohit, >>=20 >> On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:30 PM, Rohit Yadav = wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi Carlos, >>>=20 >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Carlos Reategui = >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Hi Rohit, >>>> Thanks for the info, but I was asking about the non-oss. Is that >> included >>>> in Wido's released versions? >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> This is oss (I checked the 4.3 release debs, and could not find = vmware >> jars >>> and other non-oss stuff). >>>=20 >> Thanks for checking... I guess I could have done that. >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I'm assuming the zip file you linked below will give me the same = as: >>>> git checkout remotes/origin/4.4 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Yes :) >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Also, what is the issue with tomcat 6.0.35? I just noticed that my >>>> Management Server is running the default Ubuntu tomcat6 which is = 6.0.35. >>>> Are all versions of CloudStack affected? >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Historically we've been using 6.0.33, we need to revisit it. For now = I >>> would recommend you to use Tomcat 6.0.33. >> How do you recommend dealing with the tomcat6 dependency check in the >> cloudstack install? I found 6.0.32 debs here: >> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/amd64/tomcat6/6.0.32-5ubuntu1 = would >> those be ok? Should I build my own? I am assuming these instructions >> should work for ubuntu: >> = http://plone.uconn.edu/workspaces/uits-linux/standard-operating-procedures= -sop/packaging-tomcat-6-for-debian >=20 >=20 > I think 6.0.32 would work. I build from source and run using maven so = I > don't use debian/rpms builds myself, whether using 6.0.35 or 6.0.32 = from > default repo will work (it may); just try them both, the worst case = would > be that it will fail after which you can try building your own. I have been running 4.1.1 since last year on 6.0.35 without any issues = that I can tell. I tried searching for the issues with .35 but can=92t = find anything concrete. The build docs just say there is a known issue = but don=92t specify what that is. Anyone know what this known issue is? I see this as a bigger documentation/installation problem as the install = docs don=92t mention how to get around this dependency. If you just = follow the instructions you end up with .35 on ubuntu 12.04. >=20 > Any debian user/sysadmin want to comment here? >=20 > Regards. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Thanks for filing the doc bug. >> No prob. I wold have made the changes myself but wasn't sure what = the >> preferred solution for the above dependency should be. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Regards. >>>=20 >>