cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:04:53 GMT
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <john.burwell@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
​...​

> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is
> detrimental to the community.

​agree
​


>   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
>
​I do not think it will be helpful to limit our listing to providers
meeting this criteria; If anyone wants to distribute enhancements on the
projects deliverables and share them as packages, that's fine.
​


>   *   The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest
> release tags
>
​That will be hard to enforce, we will have to make sure all providers are
up to date ahead of time.
​


> 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.  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.
>
​I don't know what has trumpted this ShapeBlue bashing nor what has made
ShapeBlue decide to provide packages in a way that was already custom at
apt-get.eu, neither are a good sign.​

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.
>
​:+1:
​

Your statement ​sounds like a proposal​. It is inteded so?


-- 
Daan

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