To top new RPM architecture off, update to release process is introduced — [1] [2].
Both tasks (this one and IGNITE-7647) are ready for review and should be merged simultaneously. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8172 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/1 > On 2 Apr 2018, at 18:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > Let me share my idea of how this shoud work. Splitting package into > sub-packages should be dependency-driven. > > It means that all Ignite modules without dependencies or with small > dependencies (such as ignite-log4j) should be included in ignite-core. It > doesn't make sense to make a zillion RPM packages. > > Critical things like ignite-spring and ignite-indexing should be in > ignite-core of course, even if they have dependencies. Ignite-core should > be fully self-sufficient and feature-complete. > > However, e.g. .net API should probably be in a separate package, because it > should depend on mono | net-core. We may also have ignite-devel package > which should include all modules which only make sense for developers who > write code. Such as hibernate integration. > > I'm not sure about MR modules. The main question should be, does it have > dependencies? Can it run stand-alone without writing code? > > Hope this helps, > > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > 2018-03-27 15:10 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> 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/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>
