Petr, I am confused. Do we already have Debian packages?
D. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Igniters! > > > Here are some news on our RPM packages initiative. > > 1. I’ve finished preliminary developing of Stage II version of RPM > packages [1]. Main “new feature” is — split design. Also I’ve added > package.sh script for automating package building process which will help > organise corresponding builds in TC as well as simplify process for > developers who wishes to have custom packages. > PR#3703 [2] is ready for review. Denis, in order to catch up with Apache > Ignite 2.5 release, I’d greatly appreciate your help in finding reviewer. > 2. With the help of ASF INFRA team, we now have RPM [3] and DEB [4] > repositories on Apache Bintray. Though they are already prepared for > hosting RPM and DEB packages respectively, and there is a way of linking > them to apache.org/dist/ignite page, there is possible alternative in > storing there only plain directory layout corresponding to each repository > type (RPM and DEB) and manage this layout (repodata, distributions, > versions, etc.) by ourselves, having more control over repositories but > lacking some simplicity of deploying new releases. WDYT? Should we try > Cassandra approach? They are storing their DEB packages as I described > above [5]. > > Also — a question arose while I was working on this issue: which OSes (and > which versions of each) are we going to support (if we are going) in terms > of step-by-step list? Currently RPM packages are tested only with latest > CentOS (and, respectively — RHEL), but there are a lot more RPM-based > distributives [6] some of which are more o less popular among OS community > (ALT, Fedora, openSUSE, etc.). > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7647 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3703 > [3] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-rpm > [4] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-deb > [5] https://bintray.com/apache/cassandra/debian#files/ > [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:RPM-based_Linux_distributions > > > > > > On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:15, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I suppose that most everything if not all from libs/options will go to > OPTIONAL (I’d call it simply ‘apache-ignite-libs'). > > More precise lib selection (if something from optional would better to > have in core package) will be discussed right after preliminary split > architecture agreement. > > > > > > > >> On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:11, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I like idea of keeping simple system of modules, so +1 from me. > >> > >> Where optional libs (e.g Direct IO plugin) would be included, would it > be > >> core or optional? > >> > >> чт, 15 мар. 2018 г. в 22:09, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > >
