On 30-11-15 15:29, Pierre-Luc Dion wrote: > Hi all, > > So just to make this email smaller, it will be strait... > > All discussions around repos is not a rant on Shapeblue where you guys are > doing a super job on maintaining the community and the project. This as to > do only with installation instructions of an opensource project where repos > from installation instruction keep changing from a generic (pub free > url)[1] to a url that look like a commercially supported product [2], it's > just that. >
I've been quit on this discussion because it's imho just that. I came up with the repo a long time ago since there was none. For the end-user we wanted repositories and we build them. > I don't see why we should have a separate vote on a binary version from the > voted source? and why not consider the repo on cloudstack.apt-get.eu as > different then 3rd party, because it is part of the installation > instruction (and we need instruction from binaries), it is also maintain by > the community. > True. It's that I host the machine, I don't own it. Multiple people have access to the machine. > It would definitely make more sense to use packages.apache.org or > cloudstack.apache.org/packages. > Yes, packages.cloudstack.org would be great! If we could have somebody CNAME it to cloudstack.apt-get.eu it would be even more awesome. > Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu include > noredis libraries. > The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs. Wido > > [1] > http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.6.0/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository > [2] > http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.5.2/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository > > Here is some other confusions examples from the mailing list: > - http://markmail.org/thread/xor6maadmwl2hnas > - http://markmail.org/thread/f4xidv6rq2anyv26 > > If we agree on categories I can submit a new PR for the download page. > > Regards, > > > PL > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 on the categories. >> >> ~Rajani >> >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
