cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:38:27 GMT


On 30-11-15 15:29, Pierre-Luc Dion wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> So just to make this email smaller, it will be strait...
> 
> All discussions around repos is not a rant on Shapeblue where you guys are
> doing a super job on maintaining the community and the project. This as to
> do only with installation instructions of an opensource project where repos
> from installation instruction keep changing from a generic (pub free
> url)[1] to a url that look like a commercially supported product [2], it's
> just that.
> 

I've been quit on this discussion because it's imho just that. I came up
with the repo a long time ago since there was none. For the end-user we
wanted repositories and we build them.

> I don't see why we should have a separate vote on a binary version from the
> voted source? and why not consider the repo on cloudstack.apt-get.eu as
> different then 3rd party, because it is part of the installation
> instruction (and we need instruction from binaries), it is also maintain by
> the community.
> 

True. It's that I host the machine, I don't own it. Multiple people have
access to the machine.

> It would definitely make more sense to use packages.apache.org or
> cloudstack.apache.org/packages.
> 

Yes, packages.cloudstack.org would be great! If we could have somebody
CNAME it to cloudstack.apt-get.eu it would be even more awesome.

> Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu include
> noredis libraries.
> 

The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs.

Wido

> 
> [1]
> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.6.0/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
> [2]
> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.5.2/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
> 
> Here is some other confusions examples from the mailing list:
> - http://markmail.org/thread/xor6maadmwl2hnas
> - http://markmail.org/thread/f4xidv6rq2anyv26
> 
> If we agree on categories I can submit a new PR for the download page.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> PL
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> +1 on the categories.
>>
>> ~Rajani
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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