cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <...@li.nux.ro>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:20:25 GMT
+1 your categories.

Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

----- Original Message -----
> From: "sebgoa" <runseb@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories

> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
> 
> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So it is
> possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
> 
> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue repos,
> Nux mirrors and image templates.
> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and offer a
> unified front.
> 
> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will take time
> and dedication.
> 
> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our website.
> Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR he
> suggested that we list 3 categories:
> 
> - source
> - community repo
> - 3-rd party repo
> 
> I am +1 with this, why ?
> 
> -source is a no brainer
> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we
> don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community repo
> but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make
> updates etc...
> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
> CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
> couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
> 
> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and any URLs
> should be cloudstack project specific.
> 
> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
> compromise that helps us move forward.
> 
> -sebastien
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged
>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>> 
>> ​I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
>> apache foundation​, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
>> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
>> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
>> but the way it is filled will be.
>> 
>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
>>>> they must be voted on.  -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
>>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>>> packaging in that case).   IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler
>>> for
>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ​We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
>>> handling of packages is a separate thing.​
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
> > Daan

Mime
View raw message