ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2018 23:00:09 GMT
Petr,

I wouldn't postpone this until 2.6 that will be out nor earlier than 3
months from now.

*Anton V.*, could review and sign off the changes? Not sure we have a
better person in the community who can do that.

--
Denis

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:

> If someone from PMCы or Committers still sees necessity about including
> these tasks into Apache Ignite 2.5 release, this is the last chance to do
> so.
> Otherwise this task will be moved to at 2.6 release at least, or even
> moved to backlog indefinitely.
>
>
>
> > On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:08, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > To top new RPM architecture off, update to release process is introduced
> — [1] [2].
> >
> > Both tasks (this one and IGNITE-7647) are ready for review and should be
> merged simultaneously.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8172
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 2 Apr 2018, at 18:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> Let me share my idea of how this shoud work. Splitting package into
> >> sub-packages should be dependency-driven.
> >>
> >> It means that all Ignite modules without dependencies or with small
> >> dependencies (such as ignite-log4j) should be included in ignite-core.
> It
> >> doesn't make sense to make a zillion RPM packages.
> >>
> >> Critical things like ignite-spring and ignite-indexing should be in
> >> ignite-core of course, even if they have dependencies. Ignite-core
> should
> >> be fully self-sufficient and feature-complete.
> >>
> >> However, e.g. .net API should probably be in a separate package,
> because it
> >> should depend on mono | net-core. We may also have ignite-devel package
> >> which should include all modules which only make sense for developers
> who
> >> write code. Such as hibernate integration.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about MR modules. The main question should be, does it have
> >> dependencies? Can it run stand-alone without writing code?
> >>
> >> Hope this helps,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>
> >> 2018-03-27 15:10 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Igniters!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here are some news on our RPM packages initiative.
> >>>
> >>> 1. I’ve finished preliminary developing of Stage II version of RPM
> >>> packages [1]. Main “new feature” is — split design. Also I’ve added
> >>> package.sh script for automating package building process which will
> help
> >>> organise corresponding builds in TC as well as simplify process for
> >>> developers who wishes to have custom packages.
> >>> PR#3703 [2] is ready for review. Denis, in order to catch up with
> Apache
> >>> Ignite 2.5 release, I’d greatly appreciate your help in finding
> reviewer.
> >>> 2. With the help of ASF INFRA team, we now have RPM [3] and DEB [4]
> >>> repositories on Apache Bintray. Though they are already prepared for
> >>> hosting RPM and DEB packages respectively, and there is a way of
> linking
> >>> them to apache.org/dist/ignite page, there is possible alternative in
> >>> storing there only plain directory layout corresponding to each
> repository
> >>> type (RPM and DEB) and manage this layout (repodata, distributions,
> >>> versions, etc.) by ourselves, having more control over repositories but
> >>> lacking some simplicity of deploying new releases. WDYT? Should we try
> >>> Cassandra approach? They are storing their DEB packages as I described
> >>> above [5].
> >>>
> >>> Also — a question arose while I was working on this issue: which OSes
> (and
> >>> which versions of each) are we going to support (if we are going) in
> terms
> >>> of step-by-step list? Currently RPM packages are tested only with
> latest
> >>> CentOS (and, respectively — RHEL), but there are a lot more RPM-based
> >>> distributives [6] some of which are more o less popular among OS
> community
> >>> (ALT, Fedora, openSUSE, etc.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7647
> >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3703
> >>> [3] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-rpm
> >>> [4] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-deb
> >>> [5] https://bintray.com/apache/cassandra/debian#files/
> >>> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:RPM-based_Linux_
> distributions
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:15, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose that most everything if not all from libs/options will go
to
> >>> OPTIONAL (I’d call it simply ‘apache-ignite-libs').
> >>>> More precise lib selection (if something from optional would better
to
> >>> have in core package) will be discussed right after preliminary split
> >>> architecture agreement.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:11, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like idea of keeping simple system of modules, so +1 from me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where optional libs (e.g Direct IO plugin) would be included, would
> it
> >>> be
> >>>>> core or optional?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> чт, 15 мар. 2018 г. в 22:09, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How big would be a final core module?
> >>>>>>> Around 30M. Can be shrinked to ~15M if separate Visor and
create
> it’s
> >>> own
> >>>>>>> package.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Guys, 30 vs 280M is a huuuuge difference.  I would agree with
Petr
> and
> >>>>>> propose the simplest modular system:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - core module that includes basic Ignite capabilities including
SQL,
> >>>>>> compute grid, service grid, k/v
> >>>>>> - optional module hosts the rest - ML, streamers integration
(kafka,
> >>>>>> flink), kubernetes, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *DEB package
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 10:35, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Considering that DEV package for now is almost platform
> independent
> >>>>>> (its
> >>>>>>> a java application more or less), that package will work
almost on
> any
> >>>>>>> DEB-based linux, including but not limited to Ubuntu, Debian,
etc.
> >>>>>>>> The only restriction is existence of systemctl (systemd)
service
> >>>>>> manager
> >>>>>>> — we are dependent on it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thats why, for instance, our RPM repository is called
simply ‘rpm’
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> package has no arch or dist suffix — it will work on CentOS,
RHEL,
> >>>>>> Fedora,
> >>>>>>> etc. with presence of aforementioned systemd.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 07:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Will Debian package work for Ubuntu?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> D.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Petr Ivanov <
> mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not a problem, rather nuisance. Also, when we
will move to
> official
> >>>>>>>>>> repositories, there can be a problem from OS
community.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Concerning DEB packages — I plan to use RPM
as base for DEB
> package
> >>>>>>> build
> >>>>>>>>>> (package layout / install scripts) for speeding
up things and
> >>>>>> excluding
> >>>>>>>>>> possible duplication and desynchronisation,
so its a matter of
> ’sit
> >>>>>>> and do’
> >>>>>>>>>> rather then some technical research. Thats why
I rose discussion
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>> future package architecture, so that after agreement
I'm be
> able to
> >>>>>>> pack
> >>>>>>>>>> both RPM and DEB identically.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yet, if you insist, I can create DEB package
according to
> current
> >>> RPM
> >>>>>>>>>> layout in no time.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 04:53, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the package size of 280M is
going to be a
> problem at
> >>>>>>> all,
> >>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>> what you are suggesting can be an improvement
down the road.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In the mean time, I think our top priority
should be to provide
> >>>>>>> packages
> >>>>>>>>>>> for Debian and Ubuntu. Having only RPMs
is not nearly enough.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Agree?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> D.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:36 AM, vveider
<mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Release 2.4 is almost there, at least
binary part of it, so
> I'd
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> move
> >>>>>>>>>>>> forward to further improve and widen
AI delivery through
> >>> packages.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As of now, Apache Ignite ships in RPM
package weighing about
> >>> 280M+
> >>>>>>> and,
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> improve usability and significantly
reduce required download
> >>>>>> sizes, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> purpose that in 2.5 release we introduce
splitted delivery as
> >>>>>>> follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - CORE
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - bin
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - config
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - libs (!optional)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - OPTIONAL LIBS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - BENCHMARKS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - DOCS (?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - EXAMPLES
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - .NET PLATFORM FILES
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - C++ PLATFORM FILES
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This architecture, as I assume, will
add flexibility (no
> reason
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> download
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all 280M+ of binaries where you are
to run only core node
> >>>>>>> functionality)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maintainability (you are in full control
of what is installed
> on
> >>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> After successful architecture choice,
same scheme are planned
> to
> >>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> used in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> DEB packages as well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.
> >>> com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

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