cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebgoa <>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:47:58 GMT

On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <> wrote:

> All,
> A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on
the downloads page [2].  This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference
to the ShapeBlue repositories.

Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is
also the one who added it in the first place.

>  The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same
manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories
are not endorsed by the community.  Objections were raised that the<>
repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository.
 To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not
find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular
repository for them.

There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether
is blessed or not.

Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing
it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server
to a few of us and can give access to people who request it.

Hence this evolved as the "community repo".

However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that
this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here).

We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF

>  Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution
packages.  As such the packages contained in the<> repository
are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.

They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several
folks with different affiliations.

> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community.
 We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none
at all.   By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
>  *   All contained packages are built from project release tags
>  *   The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
> The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the
plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package.  In order to be listed on
the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description
of the repository’s purpose.
> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in
the ShapeBlue repository.  The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of
community release tags.  

Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during
that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit,
not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.

> They contain no additional patches or changes.  

> This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install
the noredist build of a release.
> Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages
signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories.  However, we must
come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues
(e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive
well-tested, community voted packages.  Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party
repositories now and in the future.  Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would
be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
> Thanks,
> -John
> [1]:
> [2]:
> [3]:

All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing
(on the www download page):

* Official source
* Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor)
* Third party repo

In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific

The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:

- What is different between the repos ?
- Which one should I use ?
- I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?

> ---
> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
> | @ShapeBlue
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<>
> CloudStack Consulting<>
> CloudStack Software Engineering<>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England
& Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated
under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated
in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company
registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.

View raw message