>Can we keep the same package structure that exists today? >-chip Yes, we can do that but the way artifacts are packaged now is haphazard. For example, cloud-agent ships with cloud-plugin-kvm. I'm just simplifying the packages, so they ship logically. When they are installed they go the same prefix install path as they now do.
I'm proposing to logically split the artifacts packages for this new plugin that works with maven, this is different than how waf is used with maven/ant today. They still would depend on each other and when installing from a deb/rpm repository, it would be much easier for the user to choose which artifacts they want and which they don't. For example, a user may want cloud-agent without the kvm plugin. Please note I won't sent these patches for review until this works and only after QA folks verify it. Comments. Thanks. Regards, Rohit ________________________________________ From: Chip Childers [chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:43 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Building debs with Maven Rohit, Can we keep the same package structure that exists today? -chip On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: > Thanks David for the comments. Alright, in that case, the non-compliant > packages can be shipped as non-oss. > Regards. > ________________________________________ > From: David Nalley [da...@gnsa.us] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:30 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Building debs with Maven > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: >> Another poll: >> >> Would you prefer all the plugin jars/artifacts in one cloud-plugin deb/rpm, >> or, have separate debs/rpms for each plugin jar/artifact, like >> cloud-plugin-kvm etc. >> >> Some problem with attachments, my branch here: >> https://github.com/bhaisaab/incubator-cloudstack/tree/maven-debs >> >> Regards, >> Rohit > > > IMO, there's really no choice in the matter, they have to be broken up > individually. > > First - hypervisor plugins: XS and KVM are now ASF compliant from a > license perspective, but VMware is not. > > Some other plugins have that same range. I might be ok with F5's > license even though it isn't ASF-compliant, but apparently I need to > be a NetApp partner or customer to lawfully consume the library > necessary for the NetApp plugin, and I have no idea what the current > state of the Netscaler libraries necessary for the Netscaler plugin. > > --David >
