Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 949E8DA78 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:51:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57531 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2012 18:51:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 57473 invoked by uid 500); 11 Sep 2012 18:51:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 57464 invoked by uid 99); 11 Sep 2012 18:51:14 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:51:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [109.72.87.137] (HELO smtp01.mail.pcextreme.nl) (109.72.87.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:51:08 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2a00:f10:11c:ab:80e4:4487:c0d8:ad8e] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:f10:11c:ab:80e4:4487:c0d8:ad8e]) by smtp01.mail.pcextreme.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D602876323 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <504F8807.5080709@widodh.nl> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:50:47 +0200 From: Wido den Hollander User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Install.sh vs. pacakge repos References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/11/2012 05:45 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> On 09/11/2012 12:16 PM, Suresh Sadhu wrote: >>> >>> HI All, >>> >>> Installer fail to read the cloud packages and MS installation on Ubuntu >>> 12.04 was not successful(No packages were installed) Raised a blocker bug. >>> Please find the issue details in the below mentioned issue: >>> >> >> I'd like to bring this up again, do we REALLY want this install.sh script? > > > This really deserves its own thread, because it won't receive the > attention it deserves in the original thread. > > I talked with infra about this a few weeks back, and while they said > they really wanted downstreams to package, they weren't vehemently > opposed to use creating our own repo, but we'd have to figure out how > to make it work with the mirror system. > A Debian/Ubutnu repository is just a bunch of directories and files, that could be distributed I think? The question is, do we want this to go on ASF infra or us an external mirror for it? > Personally - the packages as they exist are great for people doing a > first, small scale install, but it doesn't scale. While I am not > necessarily opposed to the installer, I also recognize the problems > from a real world deployment perspective. > I disagree on the first point. When manually installing packages with dpkg you will run into dependency hell. You (you=install script) manually have to "apt-get install" several packages. The problem you run into here is that you start doing redundant work. In the "control" file you specify which packages you depend on. If you'd use apt(itude) it will resolve those dependencies for you. But when doing a manual install with dpkg it will complain about every single package which is missing. This leads to having install.sh a couple of directives to install packages we already specific in the control file. On the longer run you get packages installed by install.sh which are no longer required, but apt has no way of knowing they can be removed. Packages should always enter a Debian system through apt to know which package was depending on which package so apt(itude) can do their work. Adding a repository and install CloudStack is just 4 commands, isn't that simple enough? $ echo "deb http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/ubuntu $(lsb_release -s -c) 4.0" > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/cloudstack.list $ wget -O - http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/release.asc|apt-key add - $ apt-get update $ apt-get install cloud-agent Again, the repo of mine is just an example :) > However, there is an impact, at a minimum all of our documentation > will need rewriting, so personally, I'd prefer that for 4.0.0 - that > we do repos if we can figure it out in time, and keep the installer as > an option as well. > Re-writing the docs is a couple of hours work I'd be more then happy to do for 4.0 if we go for a repo. I honestly must admit that in some recent docs I already assumed there would be a repo for 4.0... It would be awesome if Jenkins could produce packages and send them to the mirror, but it's more then doable to build the packages locally and upload them, it's not like we are doing 10 releases a month. It's just placing the packages in the "pool" directory and have a script re-scan the repo. The question remains: Do we want this to be on ASF infra or do we host this externally? Wido