> > > > > How big would be a final core module? > Around 30M. Can be shrinked to ~15M if separate Visor and create it’s own > package.
Guys, 30 vs 280M is a huuuuge difference. I would agree with Petr and propose the simplest modular system: - core module that includes basic Ignite capabilities including SQL, compute grid, service grid, k/v - optional module hosts the rest - ML, streamers integration (kafka, flink), kubernetes, etc. What do you think? -- Denis On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > *DEB package > > > > On 15 Mar 2018, at 10:35, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Considering that DEV package for now is almost platform independent (its > a java application more or less), that package will work almost on any > DEB-based linux, including but not limited to Ubuntu, Debian, etc. > > The only restriction is existence of systemctl (systemd) service manager > — we are dependent on it. > > > > Thats why, for instance, our RPM repository is called simply ‘rpm’ and > package has no arch or dist suffix — it will work on CentOS, RHEL, Fedora, > etc. with presence of aforementioned systemd. > > > > > > > >> On 15 Mar 2018, at 07:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Will Debian package work for Ubuntu? > >> > >> D. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Not a problem, rather nuisance. Also, when we will move to official > >>> repositories, there can be a problem from OS community. > >>> > >>> Concerning DEB packages — I plan to use RPM as base for DEB package > build > >>> (package layout / install scripts) for speeding up things and excluding > >>> possible duplication and desynchronisation, so its a matter of ’sit > and do’ > >>> rather then some technical research. Thats why I rose discussion about > >>> future package architecture, so that after agreement I'm be able to > pack > >>> both RPM and DEB identically. > >>> > >>> Yet, if you insist, I can create DEB package according to current RPM > >>> layout in no time. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 04:53, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Peter, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think the package size of 280M is going to be a problem at > all, > >>> but > >>>> what you are suggesting can be an improvement down the road. > >>>> > >>>> In the mean time, I think our top priority should be to provide > packages > >>>> for Debian and Ubuntu. Having only RPMs is not nearly enough. > >>>> > >>>> Agree? > >>>> > >>>> D. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:36 AM, vveider <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, Igniters! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Release 2.4 is almost there, at least binary part of it, so I'd like > to > >>>>> move > >>>>> forward to further improve and widen AI delivery through packages. > >>>>> As of now, Apache Ignite ships in RPM package weighing about 280M+ > and, > >>> to > >>>>> improve usability and significantly reduce required download sizes, I > >>>>> purpose that in 2.5 release we introduce splitted delivery as > follows: > >>>>> - CORE > >>>>> - bin > >>>>> - config > >>>>> - libs (!optional) > >>>>> - OPTIONAL LIBS > >>>>> - BENCHMARKS > >>>>> - DOCS (?) > >>>>> - EXAMPLES > >>>>> - .NET PLATFORM FILES > >>>>> - C++ PLATFORM FILES > >>>>> > >>>>> This architecture, as I assume, will add flexibility (no reason to > >>> download > >>>>> all 280M+ of binaries where you are to run only core node > functionality) > >>>>> and > >>>>> maintainability (you are in full control of what is installed on your > >>>>> system). > >>>>> > >>>>> After successful architecture choice, same scheme are planned to be > >>> used in > >>>>> DEB packages as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> WDYT? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
