incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] BOM and supported platforms for Bigtop 0.4.0
Date Sat, 05 May 2012 09:13:58 GMT
Hi,

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Alan Gates <gates@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> My question here was whether this concept of convenience binaries
> should extend beyond ASF owned packages.  I realize that many existing
> convenience binaries contain non-ASF jars, etc.  But taking the next
> step of explicitly distributing non-ASF binaries on their own concerns me.

The normal guidelines of what kind of third-party bits can be
redistributed by Apache projects are in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html. As long as all the
components included in a "BigTop x.y" installation meet those
guidelines or are system dependencies like "Fedora 16" that don't come
form the ASF, then the ASF policy side of things should be fine.

A somewhat similar example from another domain is Apache Tika, which
binds together a lot of upstream libraries from both within and
outside the ASF and makes them available as a single integrated and
tested package. AFAIUI the main difference here is that unlike in
Tika, BigTop doesn't have a programming API for accessing the included
components. Instead, IIUC, the "BigTop API" is a deployment/testing
one with stuff like "yum install", etc.

Now (again IIUC) the interesting bit is whether it's better for BigTop
to be repackaging and -distributing upstream components by itself, or
if it would in fact be better for BigTop to simply provide something
like "bigtop-x.y.rpm" and "bigtop-x.y.deb" packages that just declare
dependencies to specific, integration-tested versions of upstream
packages.

To do this, BigTop would need to work with the upstream projects to
help them produce the appropriate deployment packages as a part of
their normal release processes. And BigTop could also team up with
Infrastructure to maintain the kind of repository structure and
download service expected by deployment tools like yum and apt, a bit
like what Maven projects have in https://repository.apache.org/.

This is in fact a bit like what Tika has recently been considering
(see http://markmail.org/message/wj4xkoax2ojnqlht) with it's upstream
components. Instead of repackaging and -distributing them directly as
a part of a Tika release, we're looking at ways to add the required
extra bits to  the upstream releases so that Tika could just consume
them as normal dependencies.

>> * In that case there might still be a role for BigTop to provide a
>> central repository for such easily consumable upstream releases. This
>> would be somewhat similar to the discussions that took place a few
>> years ago about whether and how the ASF could host something like the
>> central Maven repository.
>
> Do you know what list that discussion took place on and a general time frame?
> Reading through that would be very helpful for my thinking on this topic.

See January 2007 on board@ and infrastructure@.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message