cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Weber <>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:12:00 GMT
Would it be too blunt to propose that we set up a team, composed of any
community members interested, to handle packaging and promote that as 'the
community package'?

Realistically, as a user, it is not really crucial for me that the package
is 100% equal to the official source release.
I'm more interested in a packaged release that works.

For instance, every time we meet packaging issues right after a release we
end up with notes in the release notes of things you have to do manually.


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:47 AM, sebgoa <> wrote:

> 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 repo.
> >  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 URLs.
> 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.

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