+1 all the way, sebastien On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
> +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 > -- Daan
