cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Package Repositories
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:24:40 GMT
+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