cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebgoa <>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:08:59 GMT
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, (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.


On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <>
> 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 []
>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>> To: dev <>
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <>
>> 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

View raw message