> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:23 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Install.sh vs. pacakge repos > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > --David > > > > Thanks for starting the thread David (you beat me to it). > > My thoughts: > > Having downstream packagers is the way to go for official package > distribution of the software for each OS. However, I would like us to > include the RPMs and DEB packages that we agreed to previously (Ubuntu > 12.04 and RHEL/CentOS 6.2 and 6.3) as a binary distro via ASF > infrastructure. I'd also like us to include this install script > (functionally working for its intended purpose) with the RPMs. My > thinking is similar to David's, in that it's easy to get started with > that model. > > I don't believe that the tarball that includes packages and the > install script hurts more advanced installers at all, since we can > have other methods of getting the packages (perhaps ALSO hosting the > packages on public repos that use the ASF mirrors, or even on repos > that aren't on ASF infrastructure).
Install from repository is more intuitive, just "yum/aptitude install *", can't be simple than this:) The main problem of that install script is you can't automate the installation, need to manually type/select. If we can get the public repos hosting on somewhere, which has good downloading speed, I am prefer the repository. > > Just my thoughts... looking for others to chime in. > > -chip
