incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Packaging in 4.1
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:48:04 GMT
On 02/04/2013 02:39 PM, Noa Resare wrote:
> I'm on the last leg of my trip home from FOSDEM right now, I hope to be
> able to put in some work on deb packages in the next few days.
>

I still have some pending changes on my laptop which I forgot to push to 
the Github repo[0].

I'll push them in a couple of hours, they contain a lot of what we 
discussed regarding the DEB packaging.

Wido

[0]: https://github.com/noaresare/incubator-cloudstack

> /n
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2013 07:12 AM, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:
>>
>>> Wanted to check when would this be implemented?? Several QA folks depend
>>> on the packages and need this working.
>>> We have been still building using waf but today that is also not working
>>> as some references are removed.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to accelerate this process or leave old way of packaging
>>> in place till you are done with the new changes
>>>
>>>
>> I fully understand. As I told David, I think the DEB work is about one day
>> of work, but then again, there is something like $dayjob.
>>
>> What might be even tougher is to get the RPM and DEB packages fully
>> synced. cloudstack-common for example should contain exactly the same files
>> in the RPM and DEB version, so Hugo and I will have to keep in touch.
>>
>> I really want to have the DEB packaging working this week, period.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>
>>   Thanks
>>> /sudha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com**] On Behalf
>>> Of Rohit Yadav
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:14 PM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.**apache.org<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Packaging in 4.1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:41 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhaisaab@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:07 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So EL6 has pygments 1.1.1 - you require 1.5, so in some ways it's
>>>>>> worth than clint (clint is in EPEL, but no new version of pygments
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> EPEL/CentOS-Extras/CentOS-**Plus)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I want people to use pip to install the cli because it's the easiest
>>>>> and because rpm/deb packages may have dependency issues like you
>>>>> mentioned => may not work on all distros, what we can do is when
>>>>> people install cloudstack-cli rpm or deb, it runs a script that
>>>>> installs pip (if unavailable) and cloudmonkey. cloudmonkey is pure
>>>>> python, so the rpm/deb can also ship bundling src tarballs of
>>>>> cloudmonkey and its dependencies and install from it. Advise best way
>>>>> of doing this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess we won't be installing the CLI via RPMs at least for EL6.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that they would have internet access when installing
>>>> - which is not a valid assumption.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, the above idea makes me blanch. A package that reports as
>>>> installed, and may or may not have installed - may have installed a
>>>> compromised package (see rubygems.org compromise recently, kernel.org,
>>>> and a number of other site compromises.), or might have installed
>>>> packages I didn't know about is a Bad Idea (tm) The sysadmin doesn't
>>>> know you are installing some of the dependencies, there is no record
>>>> of those packages in the package manager, and there might potentially
>>>> be conflicts with system packages, a security vulnerability in one of
>>>> those dependencies wouldn't be caught on audit, etc etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> /facepalm\, it's just a problem of packaging. The package can include cli
>>> or any other artifact's dependencies, so in case of cli, you bundle both
>>> pygments and prettytable in cli's rpm/deb. AFAIK all of them are pure
>>> python so easily installable. The cool people can use pip to install.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I really don't intend for this to sound like a rant, but the one
>>>> of the important benefits behind using packages and a package manager
>>>> is that a sysadmin needs (and often is required to have by government
>>>> regulations) a single source of truth about the software installed on
>>>> a machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not a rant, I understand.
>>>
>>>   Developers love things like Maven central, pypi, CPAN, and rubygems,
>>>> and for good reason, they are fast, flexible, and make their life
>>>> easy. To a sysadmin managing machines in production, they are
>>>> anathema; they make system state difficult or impossible to determine,
>>>> they make audits painful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just assumed the sysadmin who would install CloudStack, cli and whatnot
>>> won't be stupid, at the same time I want his life to be less miserable.
>>>
>>>   In addition they make troubleshooting
>>>> incredibly difficult. Do I have $foo installed - which version? Are
>>>> there multiple copies of $foo installed on the system? Which one is
>>>> actually being called/loaded?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alright, but I'm talking only about the cli, since most users, admins
>>> included, would want it to run on their machines, the installation should
>>> be easiest, that's why I said they can use pip, so it works on their
>>> windows, osx, linux, bsd boxes and that's why it's pure python (written
>>> that way).
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --David
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message