+1 your categories. Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "sebgoa" <run...@gmail.com> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59 > Subject: Re: Package Repositories > Hi folks, we need to resolve this. > > 1-But I have to start with one comment: > Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So it > is > possible within ASF to officially release binaries. > > 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue > repos, > Nux mirrors and image templates. > Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and offer a > unified front. > > 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will take > time > and dedication. > > 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our > website. > Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR he > suggested that we list 3 categories: > > - source > - community repo > - 3-rd party repo > > I am +1 with this, why ? > > -source is a no brainer > - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we > don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community > repo > but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make > updates etc... > - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide > CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had > couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them. > > In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and any > URLs > should be cloudstack project specific. > > Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a > compromise that helps us move forward. > > -sebastien > > > > On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged >>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ? >>> >> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the >> apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the >> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and >> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed >> but the way it is filled will be. >> >> my €0,02 of future dreams >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36 >>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official' >>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on, >>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the >>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler >>> for >>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source. >>>> >>> >>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise >>> handling of packages is a separate thing. >>> >> >> >> -- > > Daan
