cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Luc Dion <pdion...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:29:30 GMT
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 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.

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

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


[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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message