incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noa Resare <...@spotify.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Packaging in 4.1
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:33:42 GMT
I built the latest from the packaging branch. I think it is shaping up
nicely. Some thoughts:

How would you feel with postponing the config directory changes until 4.2?
While I agree conceptually that they are an improvement, waiting with them
would keep the diff size down, simplifying merge and the focus of
stabilization for 4.1

/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
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Engineering Experience, Infrastructure tribe, Spotify

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