directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DIRSERVER-749) fix issues with apacheds RPM to get it working out of the box
Date Tue, 08 May 2007 22:50:02 GMT
Yeah this is bad.  I figured this would be the case tho since you cannot
install more than one version of a package and dependencies will cause some
collisions.  I don't think we can depend on this and need to package our
dependencies into a single RPM.

Alex

On 5/8/07, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was really excited about JPackage until I found out that they have
> 1 version of each "Package" that they support per release.
>
> Meaning they have JPackage 1.5, 1.6, 1.7...that are "releases"
> of their packages.  Each release should support 1 version of
> 1 package.
>
> Each such release has to have one supported version of a package.
>
> So suppose Tomcat and ApacheDS share a dependency.
>
> ApacheDS uses version 1.3 of this dependency in the current
> build.
>
> Tomcat uses 1.5.
>
> So what happens?
>
> Suppose someone at JPackage already built
> version 1.4, and they tried it with both Tomcat and ADS,
> and it looks like it works.
>
> Well, if that's the supported version in release
> 1.x of JPackage, then this dependency could end up getting shoehorned
> into a ADS install that JPackage supports.
>
> Personally I think that's really scary.
>
> Originally I was writing a Maven plugin for them to automate
> their work, but decided to go in another direction when
> I found out about this policy.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ole
>
>
>
> Alex Karasulu (JIRA) wrote:
> >     [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12494305]
> >
> > Alex Karasulu commented on DIRSERVER-749:
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > NP Bastiaan, it's hard to align at times.  Oh I did not know about the
> JPackage rpm.  Perhaps we need to look at that.  None of us besides Ole have
> been in contact with the JPackage folks.  Perhaps you can point us in the
> right direction so we can see and discuss what they have done.
> >
> > BTW Chris Custine is now looking at rewriting some of the code in the
> daemon and installer modules to properly generate an RPM with scripts that
> actually work out of the box.  He's primarily focused on the 1.5 branch
> and will be switching us over to use the Tanuki wrapper instead of jsvc and
> procrun.  As for 1.0 I don't think it's worth mucking with.
> >
> >> fix issues with apacheds RPM to get it working out of the box
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>                 Key: DIRSERVER-749
> >>                 URL:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRSERVER-749
> >>             Project: Directory ApacheDS
> >>          Issue Type: Improvement
> >>          Components: installer-plugin
> >>    Affects Versions: 1.0.1, 1.0
> >>         Environment: linux
> >>            Reporter: Bastiaan Bakker
> >>         Assigned To: Alex Karasulu
> >>            Priority: Minor
> >>             Fix For: 1.5.1, 1.0.3
> >>
> >>         Attachments: apacheds-branch-1.0-server-installers-rpmfix.patch,
> apacheds-daemon-trunk-rpmfix.patch
> >>
> >>
> >> The apacheds RPM has several issues that prevent it from running out of
> the box:
> >> * the init script fails to run because APACHEDS_USER is set to $USER,
> which is not defined at boot time
> >> * the init script fails to run bevause JAVA_HOME is not defined
> >> * the init script it is not registered to the init subsystem with
> chkconfig or similar
> >> * the config files are not marked as such, causing them to be silently
> overwritten when one upgrades the RPM
> >> * the RPM filename is not conform conventions:
> ${name}-${version}-${release}.${arch}.rpm
> >> * the location of the files (/usr/local/apacheds-1.0_RC4) is version
> dependent, making upgrades cumbsome. The admin has to relocate the
> partitions and config files on every updgrade.
> >> * the sources and docs are included in the rpm, even though they are
> not necessary for operation.
> >> The RPM build mechanism for apacheds also has some issues:
> >> * runs rpmbuild as root, which is frowned upon by RPM gurus for
> security and safety reasons.
> >> * the generated src.rpm is not self contained, ie. one cannot do a
> 'rpmbuild --rebuild' with it.
> >> * the sudo mechanism is totally unnecessary
> >>
> >
>

Mime
View raw message