geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: M5: is the izpack installer anywhere near alive?
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:52:40 GMT
On 9/28/05, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> well, I looked at what was in the izpack config files and what is
> configured to assemble geronimo and they don't have a very close
> relationship to each other.  I think it's a safe conclusion that it
> won't work.  I hope I'm wrong.

"Won't work", I can agree with.  But I don't think that it will be so
onerous to unbreak it.

> Ok, how do I run the installer?  Where are the instructions for it?
> How is it packaged?  At the moment we have no way of testing anything
> from the installer, so are there any plans to certify a geronimo
> distribution that includes the installer? Who is going to test it?  If
> we don't certify it do we want to ship it?  How would we make it clear
> that the geronimo-installer is not certified?

The basics are here:
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/Building_an_Installer  Note that RC
builds of IzPack 3.8.0 are available now, so it should be possible to
download a binary instead of building IzPack from source.  (Once those
are posted to Maven, we can incorporate it directly into our scripts.)
 And of course the text talks about altering plans, where in fact now
we can just substitute values into config.xml, but that's what the
installer configuration does at the moment so it shouldn't be a big
change.

> If we changed the installer so all it does is produce  customized
> config.list/xml files and does not change anything else in the
> distribution I think we could include it with the standard certified
> distro.  If it does anything else I think we would have to certify it
> separately.

That should be the case.

> > I'm assuming we're going to distribute 2 Geronimo packages, 1 Tomcat,
> > and 1 Jetty.  Likewise, we should have 2 installer packages, 1 Tomcat,
> > and 1 Jetty.  They'd probably use the exact same install sequence and
> > substitution variables, just slightly different config.xml/config.list
> > files.  This is no different than the non-installer builds.
>
> I don't think we can do this for M5 based on how the tck stuff is
> working.  I think we need to ship 1 geronimo package that can be run
> with jetty, tomcat, or both.
> I'm finishing up changes that will build configurations for the apps
> for each of jetty and tomcat.
> I think the most plausible thing we can do for M5 is supply sets of
> config.list/xml files for jetty only, tomcat only, and both, and
> include all the configurations.

Is it your position that this is a temporary aberration for M5 and
that starting with the next release we will ship separate Tomcat and
Jetty builds?  Or are you recommending this is a general approach
moving forward?  Because I am strongly opposed to this approach, but
I'll let it go if it's for M5 only.  I'll start a new thread with my
reasoning if you think this is a good way to go moving forward.

> I explained the current setup in more detail in another email.  I
> originally thought we should have the installer remove unwanted
> configurations but after more thought I think this might not be
> consistent with the tck certification guidelines.

Yeah, I found that.  Again, if this is temporarry, fine, let's get it
out.  Otherwise, I think we need some discussion around this.

Aaron

Mime
View raw message