On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:56 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [ASFCS40] Specifically what should be our "binary >> distribution"? >> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 09/06/2012 09:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012, at 02:19 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> Looking at previous CloudStack releases on sourceforge, I see that >> the >> >>>> "binary" distributions are tar.gz rpm/deb packages for RHEL and >> >>>> Ubuntu. I've looked at other Apache projects, and I see that they >> >>>> usually include the built jar files as their "binary" release >> >>>> artifacts. >> >>>> >> >>>> So my question for everyone is, what specifically do you think we >> >>>> should be distributing as an RC (and eventually as a release)? Do >> we >> >>>> want to do a set of the jar files in a tar.gz archive? Do we want >> to >> >>>> do RPM and DEV packages? Do we want both? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> How useful are a set of .jar packages in a tarball? >> >>> >> >>> Ideally, we can provide something that lets people get set up in as >> few >> >>> steps as possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> Agreed - I was raising the question, but I don't think it's needed >> or >> >> useful. >> >> >> >>>> If we do the RPM and DEB packages, what OS should we be building >> on for >> >>>> each? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> At a minimum, the latest RHEL/CentOS and Ubuntu LTS. >> >> >> >> >> >> OK - So should we agree specifically on building on CentOS 6.3 and >> Ubuntu >> >> 12.04? >> >> >> > >> > This was already discussed about a month ago: >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack- >> dev/201208.mbox/%3C501A7954.8020604%40widodh.nl%3E >> > >> > We came to the conclusion: >> > >> > - Ubuntu 12.04 >> > - CentOS/RHEL 6.2 and 6.3 >> > >> > I still think our binary distribution should be in the form of RPM >> and DEB >> > files, that makes life for admins so much easier. >> >> Right, OK on that. For this first RC, I'm going to use CentOS 6.2 and >> 6.3. >> >> I'm also able to easily do Ubuntu 12.04, but I haven't tested the >> ./waf deb process yet. Do you know if the deb build is working right >> now? >> >> > I'll be setting up a Debian/Ubuntu repository soon for at the Debian >> > packages. >> >> So I think that's great, but I also would like us to release the final >> 4.0 RPMs and DEBs via the ASF mirrors. Perhaps similar to the >> previous sourceforge packaging structure? >> >> Does anyone know where the install.sh that was included with the >> Citrix cloudstack distro lives? Is there a packaging process to >> create that tarball? > > Here it is our internal build system: > https://github.com/CloudStack/hudsonbuild > Which can build debs/rpms. I am trying to integrate it with > http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/
Great! So if that's the case, then I'm proposing that the release process use the build artifacts from http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/ build jobs for each target OS (to provide the bundled installer package) as the binary distros. I'll still follow the process of using local bundling for the source release, since there are lots of notes in the ASF release documentation about NOT doing the release signing on ASF infrastructure. I'm assuming that the spirit of those comments is to protect the integrity of a source packaging and signing process by not allowing them to occur on public / shared systems. I'll also assume that the artifacts produces by Jenkins still have to be signed locally after being downloaded from the Jenkins server. Please shout if there are disagreements! >> >> >> >> >>> (Long term we need to focus on being included with the distros, but >> >>> that's a different discussion.) >> >>> >> > >> > These are the platforms we build binaries for, not the platforms it's >> only >> > going to work on. >> > >> > >> >>>> I know these questions might be obvious to some people, but I >> wanted >> >>>> to get a clear consensus from the list. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> -- >> >>> Joe Brockmeier >> >>> j...@zonker.net >> >>> Twitter: @jzb >> >>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >> >>> >> > >
